Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Environmental And

Home , Diphasiastrum sitchense

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section

Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment

February 2011

Prepared for: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. A wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited Calgary, Alberta

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. Calgary, Alberta

In Association with: IPS Consulting Ltd. Calgary, Alberta

Project Number: 123510503

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Executive Summary February 2011

Executive Summary

Introduction and Project Description

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under s. 58 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) for authorization to construct and operate the proposed Grande Prairie Mainline Loops (Karr North Section and Nosehill Creek Section) (the Project). Due to the distance separating the two sections of the Project, NGTL has undertaken two separate Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessments (ESA). This document deals with the Nosehill Creek Section. The proposed Nosehill Creek Section is composed of a proposed 3.5 km long, 42 inch (1067 mm) diameter pipeline that will loop the existing Grande Prairie Mainline from NW-1-57-22-W5M to SE-31-56-21-W5M. The maximum operating pressure of the pipeline will be 8275 kPa (1200 psi).

Applications will be submitted to the NEB in the first quarter 2011. Pending regulatory approvals, construction of the pipeline is expected to commence in August 2011. Construction is expected to be complete with the pipeline in-service by April 1, 2012.

Regulatory Context

The Project is located within Alberta and forms part of the Alberta system, which is a federal work and undertaking subject to the regulatory authority of the NEB and pursuant to the NEB Act and associated regulations, including the Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR) (1999). The Project requires approval pursuant to s.58 of the National Energy Board Act (“NEB Act”).

Two watercourses crossings will be required for the Nosehill Creek Section. The Athabasca River and unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River will be crossed using an HDD. The HDD crossing will be done in accordance with DFO’s Alberta Operational Statements. The contingency crossing is an open cut crossing of the Athabasca River and an isolation crossing of the unnamed tributary. The contingency crossing method will require authorizations from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) pursuant to s.35(2) of the Fisheries Act and may require approval from Transport Canada (TC) pursuant to s.5(1) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and section 108 of the NEB Act.

Environmental Setting

Existing environmental information was reviewed to describe the environmental setting of the Nosehill Creek Section and help identify potential environmental effects. Information sources included municipal and provincial maps, topographical maps, aerial photographs, Codes of Practice, guides, databases, websites, existing scientific papers and published literature.

To supplement existing information collected for the Nosehill Creek Section, studies were completed for:

• vegetation and wetlands;

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Executive Summary February 2011

• fish and fish habitat; • wildlife and wildlife habitat; • historical resources; • traditional knowledge; • traditional land use; and • socio-economics.

Environmental field studies focused on locations where existing information did not provide enough detail to identify potential concerns, develop mitigation or assess potential effects or, in some instances, to supplement existing time-sensitive information that was not current. The scope of these studies focused on local assessment areas and the project development area associated with the Nosehill Creek Section.

For the purposes of the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA), the scope of assessment took into account the requirements of section 16(1) of CEAA and the NEB Filing Manual. The scope of the factors defines the biophysical and socio-economic elements to be assessed (see NEB Filing Manual, Table A-3) and the spatial and temporal boundaries (i.e., distance and time) associated with the biophysical and socio-economic elements.

Three spatial boundaries were used to describe the environmental and socio-economic conditions in the project area (in relation to the proposed route), including:

• the Project Development Area (PDA), which is the permanent RoW plus any additional footprint associated with the construction of the pipeline (e.g., temporary work space The Nosehill Creek Section requires a minimum construction RoW of 32 meters for safe and efficient construction. In addition to the 32 meters, additional land will be required for soil handling. The soil handling requirements are influenced by various factors, including ground conditions, land use, burial depth, crossings (bell holes), bends, and grade. This results in a construction RoW of greater than 32 meters at specific locations. In areas where NGTL is able to parallel existing disturbances the new land required to make up the construction RoW will vary from approximately 16 to 24 meter. Field assessments were completed on the permanent RoW and a buffer of 25-30 m on either side depending on the proposed RoW in relation to other parallel linear features. • The Local Assessment Area (LAA), which includes the PDA is the area over which the effects of the Nosehill Creek Section might be measurable. In most cases, the boundaries selected for the LAA are discipline-specific (e.g., the fisheries component assesses watercourse crossings). • The Regional Assessment Area (RAA), which includes the PDA and LAA will vary with each discipline and can include boundaries based on such things as natural subregions, or the home ranges of wildlife species.

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Executive Summary February 2011

Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment

Issue scoping completed for the Nosehill Creek Section focuses the ESA on factors that are relevant to the project and potential effects. Issues related to the Nosehill Creek Section have been identified from a variety of sources, including:

• regulatory requirements; • discussions with technical experts from various provincial and federal government agencies; • input from the stakeholder consultation program; • existing regional information and documentation regarding environmental components found in the project area (e.g., species at risk); • documentation relating to other projects and activities in the area of the Nosehill Creek Section; • field studies in the area of the Nosehill Creek Section; • professional judgment of the assessment practitioners, based on experience with similar projects in the area and elsewhere; and • operational experience of NGTL personnel.

Once issues were identified, a pathway of effects analysis was completed to help determine which biophysical and socio-economic components should be assessed. Potential environmental and socio- economic components considered for the Nosehill Creek Section are:

• physical environment; • soil and soil productivity; • vegetation and wetlands; • fish and fish habitat; • wildlife and wildlife habitat; • atmospheric environment; • acoustic environment; • land use; • historical resources (includes palaeontology); • socio-economics; • traditional ecological knowledge; and • traditional land use.

iii

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Executive Summary February 2011

Mitigation Measures

Several mitigation strategies have been proposed to avoid or minimize the effects of the Nosehill Creek Section, including:

• scheduling of activities to avoid sensitive periods • developing mitigation measures to address site-specific and general issues • Environmental inspection during construction to ensure recommended mitigation is implemented and effective

Mitigation specific to each biophysical and socio-economic resource are discussed in detail in the respective sections in the ESA.

The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and accompanying Environmental Alignment Sheets submitted with the ESA identify general and specific measures to be implemented by the Company, its contractors and subcontractors during all phases of the construction program, including reclamation, to avoid and minimize environmental effects.

Cumulative Effects Assessment

For assessment of cumulative effects, a project inclusion list was developed to facilitate an assessment of effects of the Nosehill Creek Section in concert with other known or anticipated projects or activities. Details of cumulative effects are discussed further in the ESA. Cumulative effects of the Nosehill Creek Section were determined to be not significant for all components. Cumulative effects assessment was not completed for any VEC’s as there are no known or reasonably foreseeable projects that overlap the Nosehill Creek Section spatially or temporarily.

Findings and Significance

The Nosehill Creek Section will not have a significant adverse affect on any biophysical or socio- economic resource provided the mitigation measures identified in the ESA are implemented during construction and operation.

Follow-up and Monitoring

The Project will follow the Company’s post-construction monitoring program, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation performance criteria as might be required by the NEB s.58 Order. Monitoring the reclamation of the RoW will be carried out for at least two growing seasons following the completion of construction and reclamation.

The monitoring program will include evaluation of the construction and mitigation measures for resources such as; vegetation and wildlife. Reclamation success will also be evaluated to ensure the suitability of the measures applied and also provide opportunities for an adaptive management process for any site specific issues such as invasive non-native species, erosion, or unsuccessful re-vegetation. iv

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Table of Contents February 2011

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Regulatory Requirements ...... 1-2 1.1.1 Federal Authorizations ...... 1-2 1.1.2 Provincial Regulatory and Impact Assessment Requirements ...... 1-2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Purpose and Need of the Project ...... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives to the Project ...... 2-1 2.3 Location of the Project ...... 2-1 2.4 Description of Project Components ...... 2-1 2.5 Project Schedule ...... 2-2

3.0 CONSULTATION ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Consultation and Engagement Objectives ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Methods ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Consultation and Engagement Outcomes ...... 3-2

4.0 ROUTE SELECTION ...... 4-1 4.1 Selection Process and General Routing Criteria ...... 4-1

5.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 5-1 5.1 Scope of the Project ...... 5-1 5.2 Scope of Assessment ...... 5-1 5.3 Issues Scoping ...... 5-2 5.3.1 Identifying VECs, VSCs and Potential Effects from the Project ...... 5-2 5.4 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries ...... 5-6 5.4.1 Temporal Boundaries ...... 5-6 5.4.2 Spatial Boundaries ...... 5-6 5.4.3 Identifying VECs, VSCs and Potential Effects from the Project ...... 5-8 5.4.4 Mitigation and Effects Management ...... 5-8 5.4.5 Characterization and Assessment of Residual Effects ...... 5-8 5.4.6 Cumulative Effects Considerations ...... 5-10 5.5 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual and CEAA ...... 5-10

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 6-1 6.1 Physical Environment ...... 6-1 6.2 Soils and Soil Productivity ...... 6-1 6.3 Vegetation and Wetlands ...... 6-1 6.3.1 Measurable Parameters and Results ...... 6-2 6.3.2 Environmentally Significant Areas ...... 6-2 6.3.3 RAA Land Unit Mapping ...... 6-3 6.3.4 LAA Land Unit Mapping ...... 6-4 6.3.5 Old Seral Stage Forests ...... 6-5

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Table of Contents February 2011

6.3.6 Rare Plants ...... 6-5 6.3.7 Rare Ecological Communities ...... 6-6 6.3.8 Non-native and invasive species ...... 6-7 6.3.9 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ...... 6-7 6.3.10 Vegetation Surveys ...... 6-8 6.3.11 References ...... 6-10 6.4 Water Quality and Quantity ...... 6-12 6.5 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 6-12 6.5.1 Desktop Review ...... 6-13 6.5.2 Field Assessment ...... 6-13 6.5.3 References ...... 6-16 6.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-17 6.6.1 Desktop Review ...... 6-17 6.6.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ...... 6-22 6.6.3 Field Assessment ...... 6-23 6.6.4 References ...... 6-23 6.7 Atmospheric Environment ...... 6-25 6.8 Acoustic Environment ...... 6-26 6.9 Human Occupancy, Resource and Land Use ...... 6-26 6.9.1 Human Occupancy ...... 6-26 6.9.2 Regional Land Use Districts ...... 6-26 6.9.3 Recreation, Hunting, Trapping and Fishing ...... 6-27 6.9.4 References ...... 6-28 6.10 Heritage and Paleontological Resources ...... 6-28 6.10.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ...... 6-29 6.11 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use...... 6-29 6.11.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ...... 6-31 6.11.2 Traditional Land Use ...... 6-32 6.11.3 References ...... 6-34 6.12 Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 6-34 6.13 Infrastructure and Services ...... 6-34 6.14 Employment and Economy ...... 6-35 6.15 Human Health ...... 6-35

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 7-1 7.1 Introduction ...... 7-1 7.1.1 Criteria Used to Assess Residual Effects ...... 7-1 7.2 Physical Environment ...... 7-2 7.3 Vegetation and Wetlands ...... 7-3 7.3.1 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-3 7.3.2 Wetland Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-6 7.4 Water Quality and Quantity ...... 7-7 7.4.1 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-7 7.5 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 7-8 7.5.1 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries ...... 7-8 7.5.2 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-8 7.5.3 Summary of Residual Effects ...... 7-11 7.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 7-11 vi

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Table of Contents February 2011

7.6.1 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-11 7.6.2 Determination of Significance ...... 7-12 7.6.3 Characterization of Project Residual Effects ...... 7-12 7.6.4 Species at Risk or Species of Special Status and Related Habitat ...... 7-15 7.7 Atmospheric Environment ...... 7-18 7.8 Acoustic Environment ...... 7-18 7.9 Human Occupancy, Resource and Land Use ...... 7-19 7.9.1 Pipelines and Oil and Gas Resources ...... 7-19 7.9.2 Forestry ...... 7-20 7.9.3 Recreation, Hunting, Fishing and Trapping ...... 7-20 7.9.4 Mitigation and Effects Management ...... 7-20 7.9.5 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-21 7.10 Heritage and Paleontological Resources ...... 7-21 7.10.1 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-21 7.11 Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge ...... 7-22 7.11.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ...... 7-22 7.11.2 Traditional Land Use ...... 7-22 7.12 Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 7-23 7.12.1 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-23 7.13 Infrastructure and Services ...... 7-23 7.13.1 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-24 7.14 Employment and Economy ...... 7-24 7.14.1 Residual Effects Assessment ...... 7-24 7.15 Summary of Identified Residual Effects ...... 7-27

8.0 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT ...... 8-1 8.1 Effects Considered During Planning ...... 8-1 8.1.1 Severe Weather ...... 8-1 8.1.2 Wildfires ...... 8-2

9.0 SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS ...... 9-1

10.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 10-1

11.0 ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS ...... 11-1

12.0 FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING ...... 12-1 12.1 Introduction ...... 12-1 12.2 Monitoring and Follow-up Process ...... 12-1

13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN ...... 13-1 13.1 Environmental Protection Plan ...... 13-1 13.2 Environmental Orientation ...... 13-1 13.3 Inspection ...... 13-2 13.4 Contingency Planning ...... 13-2

vii

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Table of Contents February 2011

List of Tables

Table 5.2-1 Physical Works Considered in the ESA ...... 5-1 Table 5.3-1 Grande Prairie Mainline Nosehill Creek Section Project Interactions ...... 5-3 Table 5.4-1 Spatial Boundaries for VECs and VSCs ...... 5-7 Table 5.5-1 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual ...... 5-10 Table 5.5-2 Concordance with CEAA ...... 5-16 Table 6.3-1 AGCC classes in the RAA with their respective areas at Baseline ...... 6-3 Table 6.3-2 Land Units in the LAA ...... 6-4 Table 6.3-3 Old Seral Stage Forests by Forest Type and Area in the LAA at Baseline ...... 6-5 Table 6.3-4 Potential Rare Ecological Communities in the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion ...... 6-6 Table 6.3-5 Plants used and discussed by First Nations and Métis participants during vegetation reconnaissance field surveys 2010 ...... 6-7 Table 6.5-1 Assessment of Watercourse Crossing ...... 6-14 Table 6.6-1 Fish Habitat Ranking Categories ...... 6-16 Table 6.6-2 Species of Management Concern that Could Potentially Occur in the RAA ...... 6-19 Table 6.6-3 Wildlife Observations, sign and habitat features ...... 6-23 Table 6.9-1 Surface Dispositions ...... 6-26 Table 6.9-2 Estimated Harvest Success for Resident Big Game for WMUs 344 and 346 – 2009 ...... 6-27 Table 6.9-3 Registered Fur Management Area Quotas for WMUs 344 and 346 ...... 6-27 Table 7.1-1 Criteria Used to Assess Residual Effects ...... 7-1 Table 7.3-1 Project Effects on Land Units in the LAA ...... 7-4 Table 7.3-2 Project Effects on Old Seral Stage Forests in the LAA ...... 7-5 Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings ...... 7-27 Table 9.0-1 Summary of Nosehill Creek Section Project Effects and Significance ...... 9-3

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section ...... 1-4

Appendices

APPENDIX A Vegetation APPENDIX B Fisheries APPENDIX C Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River APPENDIX D Environmental Protection Plan

viii

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Abbreviations February 2011

Abbreviations

ACCS ...... Alberta Culture and Community Spirit ACIMS ...... Alberta Conservation Information Management System AENV ...... Alberta Environment AGCC ...... Alberta Ground Cover Classification AVI ...... Alberta Vegetation Inventory BCC ...... Backup Control Centre CAC ...... Criteria Air Contaminants CEAA ...... Canadian Environmental Assessment Act COSEWIC ...... Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada DFO ...... Fisheries and Oceans Canada EPP ...... Environmental Protection Plan ESA ...... Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment FMA ...... Forest Management Agreement FMU ...... Forest Management Unit GHG ...... Greenhouse gases HDD ...... Horizontal Directional Drill LAA ...... Local Assessment Area MD ...... Municipal District MDZ ...... Minimum Disturbance Zone NEB ...... National Energy Board NEB Act ...... National Energy Board Act NGTL ...... Nova Gas Transmission Ltd OCC ...... TransCanada Operations Control Center OPR ...... Onshore Pipeline Regulations PDA ...... Project Development Area PIL ...... Project Inclusion List RoW ...... Right of Way RAA ...... Regional Assessment Area SARA ...... Species at Risk Act SCADA ...... Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Stantec ...... Stantec Consultants Ltd. TransCanada ...... TransCanada PipeLines Limited TC ...... Transport Canada TEK ...... Traditional Ecological Knowledge TK ...... Traditional Knowledge TLU ...... Traditional Land Use

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Abbreviations February 2011

VEC ...... Valued Ecosystem Component VSC ...... Valued Socio-Economic Component WMU ...... Wildlife Management Unit ZOI ...... Zone of Impact

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 1.0: Introduction February 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under s.58 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) for authorization to construct and operate the proposed Grande Prairie Mainline Loops (Karr North Section and Nosehill Creek Section) (the Project). Due to the distance separating the two sections of the Project, NGTL has undertaken two separate Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessments (ESA). This document deals with the Nosehill Creek Section. The proposed Nosehill Creek Section is composed of a 3.5 km long, 42 inch (1067 mm) diameter pipeline that will loop the existing Grande Prairie Mainline from NW-1-57-22-W5M to SE-31-56-21-W5M; (Figure 1-1). The maximum operating pressure of the pipeline will be 8275 kPa (1200 psi).

NGTL commissioned Stantec Consultants Ltd. (Stantec) to prepare an Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment (ESA) having regard for the NEB Filing Manual, the Online Application System guidance and section 16(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) for approval to construct and operate the proposed Project. Pursuant to Guide A.2.1 of the NEB Filing Manual, the level of detail contained in this report corresponds to the nature and magnitude of the anticipated project effects and has been prepared to evaluate the potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the Nosehill Creek Section on identified environmental and socio-economic components. In addition, the ESA has been prepared to meet the requirements of the CEAA and its applicable regulations and guidelines.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) has been incorporated into this assessment. In order to collect TEK several aboriginal communities participated in the biophysical field studies completed on August 24- 25, 2010, August 27, 2010, August 31 to September 2, and September 8-9, 2010 for archaeology, palaeontology, vegetation, wildlife and fisheries in order to provide traditional ecological knowledge to be incorporated into this ESA. The communities that participated and the field surveys they participated in included:

 Marlborough Community Association (fisheries, wildlife, palaeontology, vegetation, archeology);  Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation (wildlife, fish, palaeontology, vegetation, archaeology);  Nakcowinewak Nation (palaeontology, vegetation, archaeology);  Aseniwuche Winewak Nation (vegetation, archaeology); and  Alexis Nakota Sioux (vegetation, archaeology).

Although aboriginal participants mobilized to the Athabasca River to accompany the palaeontology field crew, inclement weather prevented the Traditional Ecological Knowledge program from continuing due to safety hazards on the steep slopes.

1-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 1.0: VegetationIntroduction February 2011

1.1 Regulatory Requirements

1.1.1 Federal Authorizations

1.1.1.1 National Energy Board

NGTL facilities are regulated by the NEB and the Project is subject to the regulatory authority of the NEB pursuant to the NEB Act and the associated regulations, including the Onshore Pipelines Regulations (OPR), 1999. NGTL will require authorization pursuant to s.58 of the NEB Act to carry out the project.

1.1.1.2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Transport Canada

1.1.1.3 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

This ESA has been prepared to meet the requirements of the CEAA. The Project is not of a type listed by either the Exclusion List Regulations or the Comprehensive Study List Regulations.

1.1.1.4 National Energy Board Act (NEB Act)

In addition to its obligations as a Responsible Authority under CEAA, the NEB has an independent mandate to consider and take into account potential socio-economic and environmental impacts of the Project under the provisions of the NEB Act. The ESA has been prepared to meet the requirements of CEAA and the guidance contained in the NEB Filing Manual.

1.1.2 Provincial Regulatory and Impact Assessment Requirements

As a federal work and undertaking subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the NEB, the Project will not be subject to provincial environmental impact assessment processes.

Various authorizations/notifications under provincial legislation may be required to undertake activities ancillary to, but necessary for, the construction and operation of the Nosehill Creek Section. These authorizations/notifications and the relevant provincial legislations include but are not limited to:

• Alberta Culture and Community Spirit – Alberta Historical Resources Act clearance;

1-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 1.0: Introduction February 2011

• Alberta Water Act code of Practice Notifications for pipeline and telecommunication line crossings of a Waterbody; • Alberta Water Act Code of Practice for the Temporary Diversion of Water for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines; and • Albert Water Act Code of Practice for the Release of Hydrostatic Test Water from Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Gas Pipelines.

1-3

440000 460000 480000 500000 520000 540000 6040000 ± 6040000

6020000 43 6020000 £¤ ¤£43 MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF GREENVIEW NO. 16

947

£ ¤

6000000 WOODLANDS COUNTY 6000000

99 5980000 5980000 5960000 5960000

Rosevear

748

¤ £ 5940000 5940000 Edson

YELLOWHEAD COUNTY Obed Marlboro Bickerdike Medicine Lodge

40 £¤

£¤

Drinnan

5920000 Erith 5920000 Hinton

Entrance

Pipeline Route ¤£40 Biophysical Regional Assessment Area (RAA) 057-22W5 057-21W5 Biophysical Local Assessment Area (LAA)

5900000 Socio-Economic Regional Assessment Area (RAA) 99 5900000 PocahontasMunicipal District and County Boundary I.D. NO. 12 (JASPER NATIONAL PARK) CoalspurCoalspar Mercoal Environmental Significant Area

16 £¤ 0 5 10 15 20 056-22W5 056-21W5

Kilometres 1:750,000 40£¤ 123510503-024 Kaydee Luscar Foothills

5880000 440000 460000 480000 500000 520000 540000 5880000

PREPARED BY NT NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. - Grand Prairie Mainline Loop - Nosehill Creek Section

PREPARED FOR AB SK Project Location Map BC Area of Biophysical Local and Regional Assessment Areas Interest and Socio-Economic Regional Assessment Area FIGURE NO. USA Acknowledgements: TCPL; Base data provided by the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada. 1-1 Last Modified: Jan 24, 2011By: pmcpherson

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 2.0: Project Description February 2011

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Purpose and Need of the Project

The purpose of the Nosehill Creek Section is to transport, by buried pipeline, increased volumes of sweet natural gas on NGTL’s Grande Prairie Mainline. The maximum operating pressure of the pipeline will be 8275 kPa (1200 psi).

2.2 Alternatives to the Project

Alternatives to the Nosehill Creek Section are defined as functionally different ways to meet the need and achieve the purpose of the project (CEA Agency 2006). The project need and purpose are to meet customer requirements by transporting large volumes of natural gas to market by buried pipeline. There are no realistic alternatives that meet the project need and purpose.

Alternative means are the various ways that are technically and economically feasible to implement and carry out the Nosehill Creek Section. Since only buried pipeline options realistically meet the project need and purpose, and there are no existing pipelines that provide a feasible alternative for transportation between the tie-in points, alternative routes are the only realistic alternative means that could be considered. However, given the short distance between the project control points on the existing Grande Prairie Mainline RoW and the fact the Nosehill Creek Section is a loop of that existing pipeline, alternative routes were not considered in detail.

2.3 Location of the Project

The Nosehill Creek Section is located approximately 50 km northwest of Edson, Alberta and will consist of approximately 3.5 km of 42 inch (1067 mm) diameter pipeline. The Nosehill Creek Section will loop the existing Grande Prairie Mainline from NW-1-57-22-W5M to SE-31-56-21-W5M).

2.4 Description of Project Components

The Project requires a minimum construction RoW of 32 meters for safe and efficient construction. In addition to the 32 meters, additional land will be required for soil handling. The soil handling requirements are influenced by various factors, including ground conditions, land use, burial depth, crossings (bell holes), bends, and grade. This results in a construction RoW of greater than 32 meters at specific locations. In areas where NGTL is able to parallel existing disturbances the new land required to make up the construction RoW will vary from approximately 16 to 24 meters.

Where TWS is required, NGTL will obtain approval from Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (“ASRD”) for TWS in advance of use of the land. During detailed design and prior to construction, the contractor will complete an assessment of the lands required to support construction. Once the

2-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 2.0: Project Description February 2011 construction plan has been completed additional TWS, if required, will be acquired by temporary field authorization. The temporary work space will not be required for the subsequent operation or normal maintenance of the pipeline.

No valves will be required for these projects as they will be tied-in to existing NGTL pipelines with existing valves.

2.5 Project Schedule

Applications will be submitted to the NEB in the first quarter of 2011. Pending regulatory approvals, construction of the pipeline is expected to commence in August 2011. Construction is expected to be complete with the pipeline in-service by April 1, 2012.

2-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 3.0: Consultation February 2011

3.0 CONSULTATION

3.1 Introduction

Stantec worked in collaboration with NGTL to consult with government agencies as well as local communities to collect information for incorporation into the ESA. Consultation provides those who could be affected by the Nosehill Creek Section with the opportunity to participate in the ESA. NGTL is committed to building long-term relationships with the communities within which it operates, recognizes and respects Aboriginal culture, and recognizes the importance of land. NGTL believes that consultation develops mutual trust and helps to build co-operative working relationships. The goal of these programs is to share information about the Nosehill Creek Section’s plans and activities while receiving a clear understanding of how people may be affected by the Nosehill Creek Section. Stantec is committed to assisting NGTL in achieving these objectives. The Project Application provides detailed information on NGTL's public consultation process and policies as well as NGTL's Aboriginal engagement process for the Nosehill Creek Section.

3.2 Consultation and Engagement Objectives

The objectives of consultation were to:

• share information about the Nosehill Creek Section, the proponent and the regulatory process; • to obtain feedback on the potential effects of the Nosehill Creek Section; and • to obtain input from federal and provincial regulatory agencies on the Nosehill Creek Section design and ESA requirements.

The following subsections provide a summary of public involvement activities conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA including consultation with federal, provincial and municipal government agencies and engagement with Aboriginal communities and other interested parties, where applicable. The following subsections also identify key environmental socio-economic issues raised during the consultation and engagement program. The consultation and engagement conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA was designed to complement the NGTL consultation program.

3.2.1 Methods

A number of methods have been used to inform the public, obtain feedback and identify issues about the Nosehill Section including: face-to face meetings; informal discussions; and distribution of project brochures, maps and fact sheets. The results of these consultation efforts, have contributed to the development of this ESA including mitigation and enhancement measures.

3-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 3.0: Consultation February 2011

3.2.2 Consultation and Engagement Outcomes

The results of the consultation and engagement have helped refine the ESA for the Nosehill Creek Section. With this information, NGTL identified issues, addressed concerns and responded to questions. Engagement has also provided communities and government with an understanding of the Nosehill Creek Section’s potential effects. Results of the consultation and engagement have been considered and incorporated throughout the ESA where relevant, including the effects assessment and mitigation measures.

3-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 4.0: Route Selection February 2011

4.0 ROUTE SELECTION

4.1 Selection Process and General Routing Criteria

The TransCanada general route selection process takes into consideration the following criteria in the selection of the preferred pipeline route:

• maximizing to the extent possible paralleling existing linear disturbances to: • reduce the potential fragmentation of wildlife habitat; • maximize the amount of temporary work space located on existing RoWs or other disturbances; • reduce the amount of new non-contiguous RoW required; • reduce the number of watercourse crossings; • reduce the number of major river crossings; • avoid or reduce effects on environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands); • avoiding areas of unstable terrain; • avoid lands of specific status such as parks, cemeteries and Indian Reserves, and designated historic sites; • ensure the facilities are economical to construct and operate; • consult with regulatory agencies to understand issues that may need to be addressed in the routing process; • avoid routing in close proximity to urban development and residences where practical; • reduce the number of road crossings, particularly Provincial highways and paved roads, where practical; • select technically feasible crossing locations for major watercourse and highway crossings; • ensure construction feasibility of minor watercourse, rail and road crossings along selected route; and • minimize the effects to water supply systems and groundwater resources.

The route selection process for the Nose Hill Creek Section involved a desktop review of the area including topographical maps and satellite imagery and extensive on site reconnaissance. The start and end points for the project have been determined by the locations of existing valve installations from previous construction and as described in the overall project description. The Nosehill Creek Section will be constructed within a previously approved ASRD disposition. The project is also focused around constructing a section of pipeline across a major water course. Therefore consideration of any route deviations would be significant and none were required.

4-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

5.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

5.1 Scope of the Project

The ESA provides an assessment of the following physical works, undertakings and activities as required by s.15 of CEAA and in keeping with the NEB Filing Manual.

• Construction and operation of 3.5 km of 42 inch (1067 mm) diameter pipeline from NW-1-57-22 W5M to SE-31-56-21 W5M.

5.2 Scope of Assessment

For the purposes of the ESA, the scope of assessment took into account the requirements of s.16 (1) of CEAA and the guidance contained in the OAS and NEB Filing Manual. The scope of the factors defines the biophysical and socio-economic elements to be assessed (see Table A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual) and the spatial and temporal boundaries associated with the biophysical and socio-economic elements.

Table 5.2-1 summarizes the physical works and activities considered for the scope of the assessment.

Table 5.2-1 Physical Works Considered in the ESA

Construction RoW and site preparation (clearing, grading) Pipeline construction (pipe stringing, set-up and welding, ditching, lowering in, backfill and clean-up) Construction equipment and traffic Operation RoW maintenance during operation Operational repair equipment and traffic The scope of the assessment does not include consideration of the potential effects associated with decommissioning or abandonment. NGTL is participating in and will comply with the process established by Stream 3 of the NEB’s Land Matters Consultation Initiative and Reasons for Decision RH-3-2008 If decommissioning of the Nosehill Creek Section is required at some point in the future, and if that activity is not exempted from prior Board approval under the Decommissioning Exemption Order (XG/XO-100-2008), an application, pursuant to s. 44 of the OPR will be required. Likewise, if abandonment of the Nosehill Creek Section is proposed in the future, an application will be required under s.74 of the NEB Act. Those applications will be supported by environmental assessments specific to the effects associated with decommissioning and abandonment activities. Decommissioning and abandonment will comply with all applicable federal and provincial regulatory requirements in force at the time.

5-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

5.3 Issues Scoping

To focus the assessment on matters of greatest importance (and to help determine the scope of the assessment), issues related to the Nosehill Creek Section have been identified. Issues are statements of concern about possible environmental or socio-economic effects of a project. Issues might be raised by regulators, the proponent, landowners, Aboriginals, the practitioners doing the assessment or other members of the scientific community, and other stakeholders.

Issues related to the Nosehill Creek Section have been identified from a variety of sources, including:

• regulatory requirements; • discussions with technical experts from various provincial and federal government agencies; • input from the consultation program; • existing regional information and documentation regarding environmental and socio-economic components found in the project area (e.g., species at risk); • documentation relating to other projects and activities in the area of the Nosehill Creek Section; • field studies in the area of the Nosehill Creek Section; • professional judgment of the assessment practitioners, based on experience with similar projects elsewhere and other projects and activities in the area of the Nosehill Creek Section; and • operational experience of NGTL staff.

Key project-related issues are summarized for each discipline in the ESA. Further, for each VEC or VSC selected for assessment (see Section 6.0), the validity and relevance of specific issues are evaluated in the context of potential project effects, on the basis of information from scientific literature, previous assessments and professional judgment. Justification for the evaluation is provided for each VEC or VSC and summarized in tables.

An overview of potential interactions between project activities and biophysical and socio-economic components outlined in the NEB Filing Manual was completed.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) was obtained from Aboriginal communities engaged in the Project and was considered as an additional source of information in determining the baseline and project effects. Traditional Land Use (TLU) is addressed as a component of the ESA through studies undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts of the Nosehill Creek Section on traditional land use.

5.3.1 Identifying VECs, VSCs and Potential Effects from the Project

The ESA involved identifying biophysical and socio-economic components potentially affected by the development of the Nosehill Creek Section. From this list of potential components, a list of VECs and VSCs was developed for assessment. Table 5.3-1 describes the potential project interactions resulting from the Nosehill Creek Section for each identified VEC or VSC, in the context of baseline conditions,

5-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011 habitat requirements, and ecological (or social, economic, or cultural) requirements and characteristics of the VEC or VSC.

Table 5.3-1 Grande Prairie Mainline Nosehill Creek Section Project Interactions

Interaction Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Description of Potential Effects Physical Y • Clearing the right-of-way • Surface erosion Environment: • Right-of-way preparation • Slope instability Terrain (stripping, grading, trenching) • Severe weather causing rutting and • Backfilling and strippings surface erosion replacement • Loss of soil and soil productivity • Right-of-way and drill pad preparation (stripping, grading, trenching) Soil and Soil N See physical environment See physical environment Productivity Vegetation Y • Clearing vegetation along the • Changes in vegetation diversity right-of-way • Reduction of old seral stage forests • Stripping salvage, storage • Loss of rare ecological communities and and replacement rare plants • Revegetation following • Reduction of extent of environmentally construction significant area • Accidental spills • Introduction and spread of non-native and invasive species • Increase fragmentation Wetlands N • There are no wetlands • N/A affected by the Nosehill Creek Section Fish and Fish Y • Installation of pipeline • Introduction of deleterious substances – Habitat watercourse crossings sediment or hydrocarbons. • Installation and removal of • Changes in fish habitat – instream vehicle watercourse construction will alter bed and banks of crossings watercourse resulting in loss of productive • Hydrostatic testing capacity. • HDD drilling mud release • Changes to mortality risk – isolated crossings have potential to trap fish. • Operation and maintenance activities interact with surface water • Accidental spills Water Quality Y • Site preparation, grading, • Potential change in surface water quantity and Quantity trenching, backfilling and ground water quantity through • Installation of erosion control interruption of flow. measures • Potential change to surface water quality • Watercourse crossings and ground water quality through sedimentation or release of hydrocarbons. • Accidental spills • Hydrostatic testing

5-3

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.3-1 Grande Prairie Mainline Nosehill Creek Section Project Interactions (cont’d)

Interaction Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Description of Potential Effects Wildlife and Y • Clearing of vegetation Changes in Habitat Availability Wildlife Habitat • Grading, trenching, pipe • Loss /alteration of habitat Species at Risk stringing • Habitat fragmentation pursuant to • Increased vehicle travel and • Blockage of wildlife movement Schedule 1 of activity in the Project area SARA and • Reduction in habitat quality due to spills • General increase of activity in Displacement of Wildlife Species of the area Special Status • Sensory disturbance • Accidental spills (Schedule 2 and Changes to Wildlife Movement Patterns 3 of SARA and • Attraction of animals to project site local) because of garbage Provincially Y • Clearing of vegetation • Sensory disturbance listed Species • Increased vehicle travel and Changes in mortality risk (direct and indirect at Risk (wildlife) activity in the project area mortality) • Increased activity in the • Loss of habitat and/or alteration of habitat project area for grizzly bear and wolverine Provincially N • No provincially listed plant • N/A listed Species at species occur within the Risk (plants) PDA, LAA or RAA Atmospheric Y • No sources of facility • Short term increase in air emissions Emissions / Air emissions associated with including GHG’s Quality Project operation • Construction equipment or vehicles will • Potential for small amounts burn relatively small amounts of of nuisance air emissions hydrocarbon fuel (such as gasoline and (including exhaust fumes and diesel), The quantity of criteria air dust) to be emitted during contaminants (CACs) such as sulphur operation maintenance dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), activities fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide (CO) emitted are small and construction activities are short-term and transient in nature. Acoustic Y • Use of construction • Short term noise emissions from Environment equipment and vehicles construction equipment during right-of-way preparation and construction • Use of equipment and vehicles during operation

5-4

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.3-1 Grande Prairie Mainline Nosehill Creek Section Project Interactions (cont’d)

Interaction Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Description of Potential Effects Human Y • Potential to interact with oil • Interference with other oil and gas Occupancy and and gas and other pipeline activities Resource Use operations • Interruption of recreational use of the area • Potential to affect including fishing, hunting and trapping recreational and forestry • Loss of merchantable timber during activities clearing • General construction • Permanent loss of lands for forest activities production. • RoW preparation (clearing, stripping, grading, trenching) • Use of equipment and vehicles during operation Heritage and Y • Clearing of vegetation • Loss of historical and palaeontological Paleontological • RoW preparation (stripping, features Resources grading, trenching) • Loss of site contents or site context Traditional Land Y • Clearing of vegetation • Potential disruption of hunting fishing, Use and • RoW preparation (stripping, trapping and other gathering activities Traditional grading, trenching) • Potential to affect traditional land use Ecological Knowledge Social and Y • Project construction activity • Change in community demographics as a Cultural Well- and equipment traffic may result of potential increased workforce Being disturb local community • Change in community cohesion as a result of potential increased work force. Infrastructure & Y • Potential pressure on existing • Temporary increase in traffic Services infrastructure and local • increased demand for accommodation in services through increased Hinton work force necessary for construction of the Nosehill Creek Section. Employment Y • Increase in short term • The project will provide short term and Economy construction related benefits construction related benefits to the local to the local and regional and regional economy via employment, economy via employment, supplies, and contracts. Long term supplies, and contracts. Long benefits in the form of property taxation to term benefits in the form of the hosting municipality property taxation to the hosting municipality Human Health N • No sources of emissions that • N/A could affect human health. • See Air Quality for further discussion on emissions Effects of the Y • Severe weather including • Delay in construction Environment on rain, snow, • Safety of construction workers the Project • Wild Fires

5-5

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.3-1 Grande Prairie Mainline Nosehill Creek Section Project Interactions (cont’d)

Interaction Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Description of Potential Effects Accidents and Y • Equipment failure and • Spill or accidental release of hydrocarbon Malfunctions accidental spill of hazardous during construction and operations materials (e.g., fuel) during • a release of natural gas as result of construction or operation pipeline rupture • Pipeline failure during • Fire operation resulting in an • Damage to other facilities during pipeline accidental release of natural construction gas Others N • N/A • N/A

5.4 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

5.4.1 Temporal Boundaries

The temporal boundaries for the assessment are defined based on the timing and duration of project effects in relation to each VEC or VSC. The ESA addresses construction and operation. Subject to regulatory approval, pipeline construction will occur from Q3 2011 to Q1 2012, with a planned in-service date of April 1, 2012. The planned operational life of the Nosehill Creek Section will be approximately 50 years. The common temporal boundaries for most VEC and VSC effects assessments are baseline, construction, and operation. The vegetation VEC has chosen two primary temporal boundaries (baseline and application case) where “application case” includes construction and operation.

5.4.2 Spatial Boundaries

The spatial boundaries of the ESA encompass the areas potentially affected by the Nosehill Creek Section, the areas within which a population or environmental component functions, and within which a project effect might occur (e.g., a watershed). Three spatial boundaries were used to describe the environmental and socio-economic conditions in the project area (in relation to the proposed route), including:

5-6

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

• the Local Assessment Area (LAA), which includes the PDA is the area over which the effects of the project might be measurable. In most cases, the boundaries selected for the LAA are discipline- specific (e.g., the fisheries component focuses watercourse crossings); and • the Regional Assessment Area (RAA), which includes the PDA and LAA will also vary with each discipline and could include very broad boundaries including such things as natural subregions, or the home ranges of wildlife species.

Table 5.4-1 outlines the spatial boundaries used for each VEC or VSC.

Table 5.4-1 Spatial Boundaries for VECs and VSCs

Discipline PDA LAA RAA Physical Construction RoW and N/A N/A Environment: any temporary Terrain workspaces Soil and Soil Construction RoW and N/A N/A Productivity any temporary workspaces Vegetation and Construction RoW and 500 m buffer (1 km wide 1 km buffer (2 km wide wetlands any temporary corridor) corridor) workspaces Fish and Fish The watercourse and The LAA is based on an The RAA includes all Habitat, (includes riparian vegetation within expected Zone of Impact (ZOI) portions of a watercourse Water Quality and the construction RoW for each crossing which is the where the ZOI of other Quantity) and any temporary PDA plus the area downstream projects in the same workspaces. where 90% of the construction watershed could interact generated sediment would be with the ZOI of the Nosehill expected to be deposited. This Creek Section. The RAA is is 300 m downstream of a conservatively defined as crossing on a small watercourse the watershed of each and 1000 m downstream of a watercourse crossing by crossing on a major the Nosehill Creek Section. watercourse (Athabasca River). Alberta Fish Habitat Manual (Alberta Transportation 2001) Wildlife and Wildlife Construction RoW and 500 m buffer (1 km wide 1 km buffer (2 km wide Habitat any temporary corridor) corridor) workspaces Atmospheric Construction RoW and 1.5 km buffer (3 km wide N/A – no human receptors Emissions / Air any temporary corridor centered on RoW) within 20 km of project Quality workspaces Acoustic Construction RoW and 1.5 km buffer (3 km wide N/A – no human receptors Environment any temporary corridor centered on RoW) within 20 km of project workspaces Human Occupancy Construction RoW and 1.5 km buffer (3 km wide N/A – no human receptors ,Resource and any temporary corridor centered on RoW) within 20 km of project Land-use workspaces Heritage Resources RoW and temporary 500 m buffer (1 km wide N/A – LAA and RAA for workspace buffers corridor) heritage resource is the same.

5-7

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.4-1 Spatial Boundaries for VECs and VSCs (cont’d)

Discipline PDA LAA RAA Traditional Land Construction RoW and 1.0 km buffer (2 km wide 2.0 km buffer (4 km wide Use and Traditional any temporary corridor centered on RoW) corridor centered on RoW) Ecological workspaces Knowledge Infrastructure and Construction RoW and 1.5 km buffer (3 km wide 50 km buffer (100 km wide Services any temporary corridor centered on RoW) corridor centered on RoW) workspaces Employment and Construction RoW and 1.5 km buffer (3 km wide 50 km buffer (100 km wide Economy any temporary corridor centered on RoW) corridor centered on RoW) workspaces

5.4.3 Identifying VECs, VSCs and Potential Effects from the Project

The ESA involved identifying biophysical and socio-economic components potentially affected by the development of the Nosehill Creek Section. From this list of potential components, a list of VECs and VSCs was developed for the Nosehill Creek Section. Table 5.3-1 describes the potential effects resulting from the Nosehill Creek Section for each identified component, in the context of baseline conditions, habitat requirements, and ecological (or social, economic, or cultural) requirements and characteristics of the VEC or VSC.

5.4.4 Mitigation and Effects Management

For each component, management practices and measures are recommended to mitigate the potential project-related effects. Mitigation means, in respect of a project, the elimination, reduction or control of the adverse effects of the project. These include standard industry practices, compliance with applicable legislation, regulations and guidelines, planning considerations, and other general measures applicable to the Project as a whole. These are identified in the appropriate discipline specific effects assessment and the EPP. In addition, site-specific mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible are described for each of the potential effects where required. Mitigation measures also took into consideration ASRD’s Enhanced Approval Process, and standard operating conditions

5.4.5 Characterization and Assessment of Residual Effects

Any residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section on each VEC or VSC are characterized using the following criteria:

• Direction: whether an effect on a population or resource is considered to be positive, negative or neutral. • Magnitude: the intensity or severity of an effect. It is described as the amount of change relative to baseline conditions. Magnitude is described as negligible, low, moderate or high. • Geographical Extent: the spatial area affected by a project activity. It is identified as site specific, local or regional.

5-8

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

• Duration: the length of time over which an effect occurs. Duration considers the various phases of the project and is divided into four classifications: short term, medium term, long term, or far future. • Frequency: the number of times an activity occurs over the identified phase. It is described as once, intermittent, regular, or continuous. • Reversibility: the potential for a component to be returned to the condition that existed before the Nosehill Creek Section. An effect is defined as irreversible if the resource element cannot be returned to the conditions that existed before the project within the long term. • Prediction Confidence: assessment of project effects will have some inherent uncertainty associated with data, methods, and the predictive nature of the assessment. Prediction confidence is categorized as either low, moderate, or high and is evaluated by considering: • the quality and quantity of baseline information; • confidence in measurements or analytical techniques; and • confidence in success of mitigation.

For the wildlife resource the determination of whether a change in the VEC or VSC is significant is guided by an examination of whether project activities would contravene thresholds as defined by laws, policy commitments, recovery strategies and management plans or experts (Lynch-Stewart 2004). For example, wildlife species at risk self-sustaining population objectives, as defined by recovery or management plans or wildlife experts, provide an important standard for determining significance of effects on wildlife species at risk. According to Lynch-Stewart (2004), who focused specifically on wildlife species at risk, residual effects that will diminish the potential for achieving management objectives such as self-sustaining populations or cause a species to be listed as “at risk” or up-listed should be deemed significant.

For all of the VECs or VSCs identified, there is a lack listed or legal standards or thresholds for defining significance of effects or activities. However, legal prohibitions do not provide the only standard for assessing significance. The following list is an example of the types of serious consequences that should be avoided and considered in the determination of adverse effects (from Lynch-Stewart 2004):

• effects that threaten the long-term persistence or viability of populations, including any effects that will lead to species extinction, extirpation or up-listing to special concern, threatened or endangered status; • effects that diminish the potential for species recovery, such as those effects that are contrary to or inconsistent with the goals, objectives or activities of recovery strategies and action plans; • effects that promote or prolong threats identified in recovery strategies, action plans and management plans as contributing factors in population decline; and • effects that diminish the capacity of critical habitat to provide for the recovery and survival of species at risk.

These potential consequences were considered when determining significance of project effects. In all cases, the determination of significance was based solely on the expert opinion of the assessment team

5-9

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

when evaluating residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section on the sustainability of the VEC or VSC in the RAA.

Under CEAA and the guidance of the NEB Filing Manual, the ESA must include a determination of the significance of effects. In general, significant effects are those considered to be of sufficient magnitude, duration, frequency, geographic extent, or irreversibility to cause a change in the VEC or VSC that will alter its status or integrity beyond an acceptable level.

5.4.6 Cumulative Effects Considerations

The potential for residual effects to act cumulatively with residual effects from other projects and human activities has been assessed. This involved determining whether there are other present or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities in the vicinity of the Nosehill Creek Section, which may have identifiable effects that could combine with the residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section to change the overall level of effect on a specific VEC or VSC.

If the residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section are not expected to overlap with effects from other identified projects and activities, then it is concluded the Nosehill Creek Section would not contribute to cumulative effects, and no further analysis of cumulative effects is done. If residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section are expected to overlap with effects from other identified projects and activities, then a cumulative effects assessment is completed for that VEC or VSC.

A Project Inclusion List (PIL) is not included in the ESA as there were no identified projects that were announced, under regulatory review, or under construction within a 2 km radius around the pipeline route from NW-1-057-22 W5M to SE-31-056-21 W5M. Therefore, cumulative effects were not considered any further in the ESA.

5.5 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual and CEAA

Table 5.5-1 provides an outline of where information required under the guidance of the NEB Filing Manual is found in the ESA. Table 5.5-2 provides an outline of where requirements under CEAA are provided in the ESA.

Table 5.5-1 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual

Element in Filing Manual Section of ESA Physical Environment Identify and quantify permafrost conditions N/A Identify areas of ground instability N/A Identify and describe any potential for acid-generating rock in the study N/A area Identify areas of potential flooding or erosion. Section 6.1 Identify areas of high fire potential N/A

5-10

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.5-1 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual (cont’d)

Element in Filing Manual Section of ESA Physical Environment (cont’d) Characterize historical land use to determine if soils or sediments contain N/A contaminants that could be re-suspended or released during the project life. Soil and Soil Productivity If sediments or soils are contaminated, describe mitigation and monitoring EPP measures that will be taken. Describe general soil characteristics and the current level of soil Section 6.2 disturbance For agricultural lands: N/A • describe and quantify the soil classification • describe the productivity of land and the type of agricultural resource Describe soil types in the study area that are highly susceptible to: Section 6.2 • wind and water erosion • soil compaction • loss of structure and tilth • describe any other soil types that need specific mitigation measures Describe any contaminants of concern potentially associated with the Section 6.2 project that may affect soil. Describe any known or anticipated contaminated soil within the study area N/A that may be encountered during the course of the project. Describe the criteria for evaluating reclamation success. Include a EPP description of how this evaluation will be undertaken and documented. Vegetation For lands that are not under cultivation or industrial use: Section 6.3 • describe vegetation species and communities of ecological, economic or human importance, and the diversity, relative abundance and distribution of these species. • identify the current level of disturbance associated with vegetation. For forested lands, identify the amount, merchantability, and location of Environmental Alignment Sheets merchantable timber to be removed. Note the location of any weed infestation and other invasive, non-invasive Section 6.3 and EPP and introduced species of concern. Provide a description of re-vegetation procedures, if applicable, which Section 7.3 and EPP would be implemented as part of the project. Describe the condition(s) to which the RoW and temporary work space will Section 7.3and EPP be reclaimed and maintained once construction has been completed. Describe criteria for evaluating reclamation success related to vegetation. EPP Include a description of how this evaluation will be undertaken and documented.

5-11

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.5-1 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual (cont’d)

Element in Filing Manual Section of ESA Water Quality and Quantity Identify the water resources and the quality of those resources that may be Section 6.4 and Section 6.5 affected by the project. Identify waterbodies that will supply water and describe how used water N/A will be disposed. Identify and describe any contaminants of concern potentially associated Section 7.5 and EPP with the project that may affect water quality. Describe specific mitigation for any potential effects on well water quantity N/A and quality. Fish and Fish Habitat Identify fish species and life stages of ecological, economic or human Section 6.5 importance in the study area. Describe the seasonal ranges, seasonal sensitive periods, habitat use, Section 6.5 movements, and general population status of fish species identified above. Identify any fisheries policies, or other measures to protect and enhance Section 6.5 fish and fish habitat, including protected areas in and near the study area. Identify the need for Harmful Alteration Disturbance and Destruction Appendix C authority as per subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act and discuss any verbal or written communication (e.g., letter of comment from DFO). Describe, in greater detail, sensitive areas and sensitive habitats, including Section 6.5 wetlands and riparian habitat. Describe and justify watercourse-crossing techniques or criteria for Section 7.5 determining the techniques proposed for each watercourse crossing. Describe the condition(s) to which the watercrossings and riparian zones EPP will be reclaimed and maintained once construction has been completed. Describe criteria for evaluating success of reclamation of fish-bearing EPP waterbodies and their banks and riparian areas. Wetlands Quantify and describe site-specific wetland types in the context of regional N/A abundance; distribution; and current level of disturbance. Identify wetland capacities to perform hydrological, water quality, and N/A habitat functions. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Identify wildlife of ecological, economic or human importance in the study Section 6.6 area. For the wildlife identified, describe and quantify wildlife habitat type; Section 6.6 location; suitability; structure; diversity; relative use; and abundance. Also describe the population status; life cycle; seasonal ranges (e.g., Section 6.6 migration); habitat requirements; movements; and sensitive periods. Identify wildlife management areas and established or proposed Section 6.6 sanctuaries or other areas in or near the study area. Describe current level of disturbance associated with wildlife and habitat. Section 6.6

5-12

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.5-1 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual (cont’d)

Element in Filing Manual Section of ESA Species at Risk or Species of Special Status For effects related to Species at Risk or Species of Special Status: Section 6.6 and Section 7.6 • identify the species and their status and their habitat; • determine whether the species, its critical habitat, or the residence of those species could be affected by project activities. Where the project may result in the destruction of any part of the critical Section 7.6 habitat of a wildlife species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA describe: • all reasonable alternatives to the project that would reduce the effect on the species’ critical habitat considered during project development; and • all feasible measures that will be taken to minimize the effect on the species’ critical habitat. Air Quality For construction related effects associated with existing or potential public Section 6.7 concerns with dust or emissions from construction equipment, provide an overview of concern and a qualitative assessment. For projects that result of may result in an increase in airborne emissions Section 7.7 during operations or maintenance: • characterize local and regional meteorological conditions; • describe existing ground level concentrations and air shed concentrations of air emission parameters; • describe and quantify any potential air emissions of concerns, including fugitive emissions and odours; • describe the measures that would be implemented in accordance with Environment Canada’s goal to keep already-clean areas clean and to implement continuous improvement; and • describe participation in national or regional air emission tracking and reporting programs or provide rationale why participation is not required. Acoustic Environment For effects associated with existing or potential public concerns with noise Section 6.8 levels during construction: • Provide an overview of concerns; and • Provide a qualitative assessment. For projects which result in an increase in noise levels during operations Section 7.8 over existing levels: • quantify and describe ambient noise regimes in the study area; and • describe and quantify potential noise events that would increase noise levels resulting in potential effects to receptors. Human Occupancy and Resource Use Describe the general patterns of human occupancy and resource use in Section 6.9 the study area. Describe the potential interactions of the project with local and regional Section 6.9 human occupancy and resource development activities. Describe the goals of any applicable local or regional land use plans or Section 6.9 local or regional development plans and how the project complies with such plans.

5-13

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.5-1 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual (cont’d)

Element in Filing Manual Section of ESA Identify potential effects to the quality and quantity of ground or surface Section 7.4 water used for domestic, commercial, agricultural or recreational uses that may be caused by the project. Identify any potential visual or other aesthetic effects of the project on N/A existing land use in the study area. Heritage Resources Describe any known heritage resources in the study area. Section 6.10 Determine the potential for any undiscovered heritage resources in the Section 6.10 and 7.10 study area. Describe what contingency plans and field measures would be undertaken Section 7.10 and EPP should a heritage resource be discovered during construction. Provide copies of correspondence from provincial authorities responsible HRIA clearance will be provided when for heritage resources with comments respecting any heritage resource received from Alberta Community and impact assessment and proposed mitigation measures. Cultural Spirit Provide a statement indicating whether the company will implement the Section 7.10 recommendations of the provincial heritage resource authorities. If a previous heritage resource assessment has been completed in the N/A study area, a summary should be filed along with any additional mitigation measures specific to the applied-for project. Traditional Land and Resource Use Describe how lands in the study area are currently used by Aboriginal Section 6.11 people for traditional purposes. Identify the Aboriginal groups currently carrying out traditional use Section 6.11 activities, the spatial and temporal extent of use, and how the project would affect this use. Describe the methodology used to collect the traditional use information Section 6.11 and 7.11 and provide a list, and the rationale for the list, of all Aboriginal groups that were contacted. Provide evidence that those Aboriginal groups who participated in the Section 7.11 collection of traditional use information have had the opportunity to review the information and proposed mitigation. Social and Cultural Well-Being Describe the socio-cultural setting of the study area. Section 6.12, 6.13, and 6.14 Provide an overview of the potential sources of socio-cultural effects on the Section 6.13 and 6.14 local community. Describe the potential interactions of the project’s construction, operations Section 7.12, and maintenance workforces with the local community, residents and businesses. Provide an assessment of how these interactions might affect the socio- Section 7.12, cultural well-being of the local community.

5-14

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.5-1 Concordance with NEB Filing Manual (cont’d)

Element in Filing Manual Section of ESA Human Health Describe and quantify: Section 6.15 The project activities, toxic components and nuisances that could potentially be sources of adverse human health effects; and The potential human receptors of these effects. Where the project could create air, water or noise emissions or effluent N/A discharge levels that meet local, provincial or federal guidelines, yet public concerns regarding human health effects have been raised, provide a description of the public concerns and how they will be addressed. Where the project could create health effects, summarize how these N/A effects would be mitigated. Where it is reasonable to assume there could be a potentially high or N/A significant risk to human health from the project, provide a human health risk assessment. Infrastructure and Services Describe the existing local and regional infrastructure in the study area. Section 6.13 Describe the existing local and regional services in the study area. Section 6.13 Consider effects of the project on the above-noted infrastructure and Section 7.13 services as well as current traffic patterns and the need for project-related government expenditures for new or expanded services or infrastructure. Employment and Economy Describe the local and regional employment situation in the study area. Section 6.14 Describe any local or regional employment development plans. Section 6.14 Describe the ability of local and Aboriginal residents and businesses to N/A provide labour services, equipment, supplies and other contracting needs during construction, operations and maintenance of the project. Describe plans to encourage local and Aboriginal employment, Section 7.14 procurement and contracting opportunities. Describe any training programs the company is supporting to enhance N/A employment opportunities for local and Aboriginal residents. Provide an estimate of the anticipated levels of local and regional N/A economic participation in the project in comparison to the total project requirements. If the project has the potential to directly affect local, regional, provincial or Section 7.14 federal government revenues from tax levees or other means during construction and operation, provide a quantitative assessment of the potential effects.

5-15

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 5.0: Assessment Methodology February 2011

Table 5.5-2 Concordance with CEAA

Section in CEAA requirement CEAA Section of ESA The environmental effects of the project, including: • the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that s.16.1(a) Section 11 may occur in connection with the project • any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result s.16.1(a) Section 10 from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out • the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a) s.16.1(b) Section 10 • comments from the public that are received in accordance with s.16.1(c) this Act and the regulations • measures that are technically and economically feasible and s.16.1(d) EPP that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project • any other matter relevant to the screening, comprehensive s.16.1(e) study, mediation or assessment by a review panel, such as the need for the project • alternatives to the project s.16.1(e) Section 2.1 Subsection 2(1) of CEAA defines environmental effects as any change in the biophysical environment caused by the project, as well as certain effects that flow directly from those changes, including effects on: • listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or residence, or the s.2(1) Section 6.6 residences of individuals of that species as defined in the Species at Risk Act • health and socio-economic conditions s.2(1) Section 6.9, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15 • physical and cultural heritage, including effects on things s.2(1) Section 6.10 archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance • the current use of lands for traditional purposes by aboriginal s.2(1) Section 6.11 persons • any changes to the project that may be caused by the s.2(1) Section 8 environment

5-16

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE CONDITIONS

6.1 Physical Environment

The Nosehill Creek Section is located in the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion of the Foothills Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). The Foothills Natural Region is situated along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains from the Bow River Valley to just south of Grande Prairie with other outlying areas east and north of Grande Prairie. Generally it has a cool, moist climate with highly variable topography (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

The Lower Foothills Natural Subregion has the most diverse forests in Alberta. Mixedwood forests with various combinations of lodgepole pine, aspen, balsam poplar, birch, balsam fir and white spruce are the dominant forest type in the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion. On the driest sites, shrubby grasslands occur providing excellent habitat for ungulate species (elk, deer). Wetlands make up approximately fifteen to forty percent of the subregion and are dominated by treed fens (peatlands) with tamarack and black spruce (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Much of the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion has extensive land use by forestry and industrial activities resulting in fragmentation of large patches of native vegetation.

The project area is characterized by rolling topography created by deformed bedrock. Surficial materials are commonly a morainal veneer or blanket over bedrock. Extensive organic deposits occur in valleys and wet depressions. The elevation range is between 650 to 1625 m. The approach slopes to the Athabasca River are the most severe terrain component along the proposed route. Some of the unique landforms (Athabasca River valley) in the region were designated as part of a provincial Environmentally Significant Area (discussed under Section 6.8: Vegetation and Wetlands).

6.2 Soils and Soil Productivity

The most common soils are Podzolic Gray Luvisols developed on well drained till material (Wildhay-aa soil series); eluviated Dystric Brunisols developed on very gravelly glaciofluvial deposits and occur on the terraces of the Athabasca River (Jarvis soil series); and Cumulic Regosols, can be found on the floodplain of the Athabasca River valley, and are developed on recent fluvial material (Iosegun soil series). The soils do not support agricultural activity but are forested and the area is used for timber production.

6.3 Vegetation and Wetlands

Baseline vegetation studies were completed to document existing characteristics of upland and wetland vegetation in the LAA and RAA. These studies included land unit map development, and reconnaissance

6-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011 surveys. In addition, available historical data and existing vegetation studies for other projects were reviewed. This section provides context for the ESA and identifies potential landscapes, communities and species of value and concern. The objectives of the vegetation baseline are to:

• identify and describe any environmentally significant or protected areas near the Nosehill Creek Section; • describe and discuss land units, including wetlands, in the RAA using the Alberta Ground Cover Classification (AGCC) (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2009, Internet site); • describe and discuss land units, including wetlands, in the LAA using ecosite phases (Beckingham and Archibald, 1996, Beckingham et al., 1996), wetland classes (Halsey et al. 2003); • identify and discuss old seral stage forest in the LAA; • identify and discuss rare plants and defined rare ecological communities (Allen 2010); and • discuss the presence of invasive and non-native plant species.

6.3.1 Measurable Parameters and Results

Vegetation and wetlands are VECs and play a fundamental role in the functioning of natural ecosystems. Changes in the distribution and occurrence of vegetation communities and wetlands and associated diversity might alter ecosystem function. To focus the assessment, measurable parameters associated with vegetation diversity were chosen to assess the project effects on vegetation and wetlands:

• Environmentally Significant Areas; • native vegetation land units, including upland ecosite phases and wetland classes; • old seral stage forests; • rare plants and rare ecological communities; and • non-native and invasive species.

Measurable parameters were selected based on professional judgment and past project experience.

6.3.2 Environmentally Significant Areas

Environmentally Significant Areas are identified as areas that may assist in maintaining diversity and can contain rare or unique elements in the province, or areas that include elements that may require special management consideration due to their conservation needs (Alberta Parks, Tourism and Recreation 2009, Internet site). While Environmentally Significant Areas do not necessarily include areas that require legal protection, they have been identified within Alberta to help inform land use planning and policy at local, regional and provincial scales. Environmentally Significant Areas were extracted from Environmentally Significant Areas Provincial Update 2009 (Fiera Biological Consulting 2009, Internet site). One Environmentally Significant Area (# 99) is present within the RAA; ranked as having provincial value and is bisected by the PDA. This ESA is 71,265 ha and encompasses the Athabasca River Valley.

6-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.3.3 RAA Land Unit Mapping

Vegetation in the RAA was characterized from AGCC data (ASRD 2009, Internet site). AGCC is a land- use cover map of Alberta that was generated from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM) imagery. Land units in the RAA were defined from AGCC data current to 2001. Recent burn data to 2009 was also included (ASRD 2010, internet site).

The RAA is 1,036.3 ha and is dominated by upland classes representing 916.2 ha total or 88% of the RAA. Of the upland classes, closed forested communities account for the largest areal extent of upland classes with 317.1 ha or 31% of the RAA. Wetlands account for 2% of the RAA with 21.5 ha and include peatland type wetlands of treed bogs. Total disturbance in the RAA is 13.5 ha or 1% of the RAA (Table 6.3-1).

Table 6.3-1 AGCC classes in the RAA with their respective areas at Baseline

Alberta Ground Cover Class Area at Baseline Percent of RAA (ha) (%) Upland Classes Closed conifer 18.5 2 Closed deciduous 149.9 14 Closed mixedwood 242.7 23 Closed pine 317.1 31 Open pine 13.0 1 Closed white spruce 18.9 2 Mixed grassland 91.2 9 Upland shrubland 64.9 6 Upland Subtotal 916.2 88 Wetland Classes & Water Shrubby wetland 4.9 0 Treed bog 7.7 1 Undifferentiated wetland 21.5 2 Wetland Subtotal 34.0 3 Water 63.0 6 Disturbance Classes Anthropogenic disturbance 5.4 1 Road 8.1 1 Disturbance Subtotal 13.5 1 Other 9.7 1 Total 1036.3 100

6-3

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.3.4 LAA Land Unit Mapping

A land unit map was constructed for the LAA from the interpretation of AVI data current to 2006. AVI polygon attribute data including canopy and understory species, crown closure and moisture regimes were interpreted to ecosite phases based on Field Guide to Ecosite of West-central Alberta (Beckingham et al., 1996) for upland units.

Similarly for wetlands, AVI polygon attribute data were interpreted to wetland classes following the Alberta Wetland Inventory (Halsey et al. 2003). Disturbance land units in the LAA were compiled from Digital Integrated Dispositions.

The LAA is 443.6 ha in size and is dominated by upland land units with 331.6 ha or 74.7% of the LAA. The e3 ecosite phase with aspen, white spruce and lodgepole pine as co-dominant tree species and low- bush cranberry dominant in the understory represents the largest portion of the upland units with 185.4 ha (41.9%). Wetlands in the LAA are wooded swamps with 2 ha or 0.5% of the LAA. Remaining land units include disturbed land (12.8%) and water (1.8%) (see Table 6.3-2).

For the distribution of land units across the LAA see Vegetation Appendix A. For a description of ecosite phases and land units, see Vegetation Appendix A.

Table 6.3-2 Land Units in the LAA

Land Units Upland Ecosite Phases Baseline Area Percent of LAA (ha) (%) d1 Labrador tea/ lodgepole pine-black spruce 41.9 9.5 e1 low-bush cranberry/ lodgepole pine 25.8 5.8 e2 low-bush cranberry/ aspen 52.6 11.9 e3 low-bush cranberry/ aspen-white spruce-lodgepole pine 185.8 41.9 e4 low-bush cranberry/ white spruce 25.3 5.7 g1 shrubby meadow 0.1 <0.01 Upland Subtotal 331.6 74.7 Wetland Classes STNN – wooded swamp 2.0 0.5 Wetland Subtotal 2.0 0.5 Disturbance Land Units Disturbed Land 8.4 1.9 Cutblock - shrubby 32.4 7.3 Industrial 49.7 11.2 Road 7.2 1.6 Disturbance Subtotal 56.9 12.8 Other Land Units (sand) 4.4 1.0 Water 7.9 1.8 TOTAL 443.6 100.0

6-4

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.3.5 Old Seral Stage Forests

Old Seral stage forests differ from younger forests in species composition, function and structure. Typically they are characterized by varying ages of trees within a forest stand, large canopy trees and a canopy that is relatively open or has gaps. They also have an accumulation of snags and downed woody debris (Humphrey 2005). Old seral stage forests provide habitat for wildlife and act as reservoirs of genetic diversity in a fragmented landscape. Their presence in the landscape increases landscape, community and species diversity.

Old seral stage forests in the LAA were determined using stand ages in AVI data as represented by values in the “origin” category of the AVI attribute tables and adjusted by incorporating stand modifier data. Old seral stage for coniferous stands was considered to be 120 years or older and for deciduous and mixed-wood stands, 110 years or older.

There are 241.7 ha of old seral stage forests in the LAA (of a total 443.6 ha). Of the forested areas in the LAA, 72.5% is old seral stage forests. A majority of old seral stage forests are mixed-wood forest types representing 173.6 ha or 71.8% of old seral stage forests (Table 6.3-3).

Table 6.3-3 Old Seral Stage Forests by Forest Type and Area in the LAA at Baseline

Area at Baseline in Local Percent at Baseline of Local Old Seral Stage Forest Type Assessment Area Assessment Area (ha) (%) Coniferous 16.4 6.8 Deciduous 51.7 21.4 Mixedwood 173.6 71.8 Total 241.7 100

6.3.6 Rare Plants

By definition, rare plants have spatial, ecological and temporal distributions that are restricted to small areas or uncommon habitats. Plant rarity is determined by three factors (or combinations thereof): geographic range, habitat specificity, and plant abundance. In Alberta, plant rarity is determined and tracked by three agencies based on different legislation.

Federally listed rare plant species are protected under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Government of Canada 2010, Internet site). The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is responsible for classifying and assessing or re-assessing the status of wildlife species in Canada and has developed ranks for rare species (Appendix A).

ASRD produces a status report of wild species in Alberta. The current report, The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2005 ASRD (2005, Internet site), contains a ranking system and assessment for Alberta’s species (Appendix A).

6-5

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

The Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS, formerly Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre) tracks and assesses plant rarity in Alberta and has developed a ranking system based on NatureServe (Kemper 2009). Provincial ranks and their definitions are described in Appendix A.

Global ranks are taken from NatureServe (2009, Internet site). Global ranks and their definitions are described in Appendix A.

Potential rare plants in the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion include 19 liverworts, 44 mosses, 45 lichens and 34 vascular plant species (ANHIC 2009). They are listed in Appendix A.

No plant species listed in SARA Schedules 1 to 3 were identified historically in the LAA or RAA. As well, there are no provincially listed historical occurrences of rare plants in the LAA or RAA.

The timing of the field surveys in 2010 missed the optimal timing windows to identify potential rare or SARA plants. As well, an aboriginal participant recommended completing the biophysical surveys in June or July so more plant life would be visible. A rare plant/rare ecological community survey is recommended in early June, prior to construction, to confirm results presented in this section.

6.3.7 Rare Ecological Communities

Rare ecological communities are defined as vegetation community types that have been described as unusual, uncommon, of limited extent or encountered infrequently, or described by vegetation experts as in decline or threatened (Allen 2010, Internet site). Communities with restricted distribution in Alberta are ranked, mapped and tracked by ACIMS. Provincially ranked rare plant communities potentially occurring in the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion are provided in Table 6.3-4. For the definitions for provincial rankings of rare plant communities, see Appendix A.

No historical rare ecological communities are present in the LAA or RAA. No rare ecological communities were observed in the LAA during the reconnaissance surveys in 2010. If a community is identified as unique or unusual, sampling is done to document its composition and condition following vegetation characterization methods. A survey for rare ecological communities is recommended in early June, prior to construction, to confirm results presented in this section.

Table 6.3-4 Potential Rare Ecological Communities in the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion

Lower Foothills Natural Subregion Community Common name Alberta Rank Global Rank Populus tremuloides / Rubus aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla S2S3 NNR parviflorus / Aralia nudicaulis Betula glandulosa / Festuca bog birch / mountain rough fescue S2S3 NNR campestris Festuca campestris - Leymus mountain rough fescue - hairy wild rye S2S3 NNR innovatus

6-6

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.3.8 Non-native and invasive species

Non-native and invasive species include those:

• listed as prohibited noxious or noxious in Alberta’s Weed Control Act regulations (Government of Alberta 2010, internet site); and • considered to be introduced species following the Flora of Alberta (Moss 1983).

While no weed surveys were conducted during reconnaissance field surveys in 2010, no prohibited noxious or noxious species (Government of Alberta 2010, internet site) were recorded during reconnaissance field surveys.

One species, cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicer) was found in dense, large patches along the existing Grande Prairie Mainline RoW. Cicer milkvetch is not listed in Alberta’s weed regulations. However, it is an invasive, perennial, non-native agronomic species with a moderate lifespan. It has a high moisture use, is intolerant of shade and has a rapid vegetative spread rate (USDA 2010, internet site). It is an agronomic forage species with moderate palatability and may be invasive and/or persistent in certain natural landscapes. It is persistent in foothills, grassland and boreal forest (ANPC 2010).

6.3.9 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

During reconnaissance field surveys members of First Nation and Métis groups were present and contributed their ecological, vegetation and plant use knowledge and expertise. Table 6.3-5 presents the plants that were discussed along with the traditional uses.

Table 6.3-5 Plants used and discussed by First Nations and Métis participants during vegetation reconnaissance field surveys 2010

Scientific Name Common Name Traditional Uses Abies balsamea balsam fir Medicinal Achillea millifolium yarrow Medicinal Acokanthera oblongifolia Arrow plant Medicinal Actaea rubra baneberry training horses Allium sp wild onion Food Aster sp. aster Medicinal Betula papyrifera birch bark Medicinal, Food Coptis trifolia goldthread Medicinal Cornus canadensis bunch berry Food Delphinium sp. Larkspur Medicinal Fragaria sp. strawberry runners Medicinal Fragaria virginiana wild strawberry Medicinal Galium triflorum sweet scented bedstraw Medicinal Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip Food Ledum groenlandicum Labrador tea Medicinal

6-7

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Table 6.3-5 Plants used and discussed by First Nations and Métis participants during vegetation reconnaissance field surveys 2010 (cont’d)

Scientific Name Common Name Traditional Uses Linnaea borealis twin flower Medicinal Lonicera sp. honeysuckle Insect repellant Lycopodiopsida Club moss Medicinal Melilotus sp. sweet clover Medicinal Mertensia paniculata tall lungwort Medicinal Myrrhis odorata Sweet cicily Medicinal Osmorhiza sp. sweet cicely Medicinal Petasites frigidus arros leaved coltsfoot Medicinal Petasites palmatus coltsfoot Medicinal Picea spp. Spruce Medicinal, Tanning hides Picea spp. spruce Medicinal Pyrola asarifolia common pink wintergreen Medicinal Rhinenthus borealis Yellow rattle Parasitic Ribes sp. black gooseberry Medicinal Rosa acicularis wild rose Medicinal Rubus idaeus wild red raspberry Medicinal, Red dye Rubus parviflorus dewberry Medicinal Shepherdia canadensis buffalo berry Medicinal Streptopus sp. twisted stalk Medicinal Undetermined spiny puffbulls Medicinal Undetermined large puffball Medicinal Sorbus sp. Mountain Ash Food Usenea sp. old man's beard Medicinal Vaccinium sp. blueberry Medicinal, Used as blue dye Viburnum edule low-bush cranberry Food Viburnum edule low-bush cranberry Medicinal

6.3.10 Vegetation Surveys

Vegetation survey sites were chosen to characterize representative native vegetation types present along the RoW. Disturbed areas were not sampled. Vegetation reconnaissance surveys were completed on September 8 and 9, 2010 and included participation by Aboriginal communities.

Vegetation characterization included identifying dominant tree and shrub species and percent cover or dominance within the different physiognomic structures (i.e., canopy, subcanopy, tall shrub and low shrub). Distinctive dominant graminoid and herbaceous species were identified and percent cover was estimated. Physical aspects of each site were also noted, including soil moisture and soil nutrient regime, as well as slope and aspect.

6-8

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

An ecosite phase was assigned to each survey site based on the dominant tree, shrub and herb constituents, as described by Beckingham et al., (1996) for areas in the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion. Wetland survey sites were characterized into wetland classes following the Alberta Wetland Inventory (Halsey et al. 2003).

Species names are adopted from The Flora of Alberta (Moss 1983) for vascular species with the exception of the genus Carex which follows the Flora of North America (Flora of North America 2002) and taxonomic changes adopted by the ACIMS for rare species (Kemper 2009). Common names are adopted from the List of All Vascular Plant Elements (ACIMS 2010, Internet site). A total of 56 vascular species were identified during the 2010 reconnaissance survey.

For bryophyte species, naming conventions are adopted from Anderson (1990) for Sphagnum, Anderson et al. (1990) for other mosses, and Stotler and Crandall-Stotler (1977) for liverworts and hornworts with the exception of taxonomic changes adopted by ACIMS for rare species (Kemper 2009). Common names for bryophyte plants follow the List of all Bryophyte Elements (ACIMS 2010, Internet site). Lichen species naming conventions follow Brodo et al. (2001), with taxonomic changes adopted by ACIMS for rare species (ANHIC 2002). A total of 9 bryophyte species were identified during the 2010 reconnaissance survey.

There were no wetlands identified on the 2010 reconnaissance survey that will be affected by the Nosehill Creek Section.

For a detailed listing of species identified during the 2010 reconnaissance survey and species common to the region, see Appendix A.

Recommendations:

The following are recommendations related to the results of the vegetation surveys and TEK participants:

• The timing of the 2010 vegetation surveys was not optimal to identify rare plant species; therefore it is recommended that a rare plant/rare ecological community survey be undertaken prior to construction; and • It is recommended that a weed survey be completed prior to construction.

The following are observations and recommendations of aboriginal participants who participated in the vegetation surveys:

Observations:

• Cleaning of a shore line is a problem because many of our plants are collected that way.” The aboriginal participant was referring to manual collection of plants, drift wood and other plant material that is found washed up on the shore of lakes and rivers. It was explained that by cleaning up the lake for appearance you lose access to easily accessible medicines. .A participant noted that sometimes when a RoW is cleared many of the cut trees are left on the ground. This primarily happens with poplar trees as mills like the Weyerhaeuser mill will not take poplar trees. The participant has observed these trees left on the right of way causing hazards for animals;

6-9

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

• The medicines are clean, pure and abundant in this area; • Participant said that there has been big changes in the seasons, the "seasons are off". The participant uses seasonal indicators to pick medicine at the right time; for example, when the lilies are blooming the strawberries are ripe. The participant states that 'Things (the medicines) aren't ready when they should be and these seasonal changes affect the animals as well'. These seasonal changes before now have not been talked about by the ancestors. The seasonal changes have been significant in the last 5 years. The participant feels that they would not be able to survive a traditional lifestyle as they did in the past under conditions like these; • Participant stated the pine in the area has a natural disease, a growth like cancer and that the burls caused by the cancer are rare; • A participant identified a Virginia grape fern as rare, and identified an unusually large Tamarac tree; • A participant identified northern sarsaparilla, blue berries and high bush cranberries, stating they are used respectively as a blood cleaner, a natural source of insulin and to treat cramp; • A participant indicated the root of the Indian paintbrush is toxic to humans because it is high in selenium. However when the plant dies it transfers the selenium to the soil which is then absorbed by other plants; and • A participant observed the plants are not in synchronous bloom. “Everything has a season and the fact that the plants are not blooming together tells you that the area is disturbed here. Here, one paintbrush just blooming and another in seed”. The asynchronous blooming was identified for fireweed, golden rod and aster as well.

6.3.11 References

6.3.11.1 Literature Cited

Anderson, B.W., H.A Crum and W.R. Buck. 1990. List of the mosses of North America north of Mexico. The Bryologist 93: 448–499.

ANHIC (Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre). 2002. List of all Lichen Elements. Parks and Protected Areas Division, Alberta Community Development. Edmonton, Alberta.

Beckingham, J.D., I.D.W. Corns and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of West-Central Alberta. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Center, Edmonton, Alberta. Special Report 9.

Brodo, I.M., S.D. Sharnoff and S. Sharnoff. 2001. The Lichens of North America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Flora of North America. 2002. Magnoliaphyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. New York and Oxford.

6-10

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Halsey, L.A., Vitt, D.H., Beilman, D., Crow, S., Mehelcic, S. and R. Wells. 2003. Alberta Wetland Inventory Classification System Version 2.0. Prepared for the Resource Data Division, Sustainable Resource Development.

J.W. Humphrey. 2005. Benefits to biodiversity from developing old-growth conditions in British upland spruce plantations: a review and recommendations. Forestry, 78 (1), 33-53.

Kemper, J.T. 2009. Alberta Natural Heritage Information Center Vascular and Non-vascular Plant Tracking and Watch Lists. Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation Division, Edmonton, Alberta.

Lancaster, Jane (ed.). 2000. Alberta Native Plant Council Guidelines for Rare Plant Surveys in Alberta. Alberta Native Plant Council. Edmonton, Alberta.

Moss, E.H. 1983. Flora of Alberta. 2nd Edition (revised by J. G. Packer). University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario.

Natural Regions Committee 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852.

Stotler, R. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. List of liverworts and hornworts of North America. The Bryologist 80: 407–428.

6.3.11.2 Internet Sites

ACIMS (Alberta Conservation Information Management System). 2010. List of all species and ecological communities within the ANHIC Database. Available at: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/datarequests/default.aspx . Accessed September 2010.

Alberta Parks, Tourism and Recreation 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas. Available at: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/default.aspx . Accessed September 2010.

ANPC (Alberta Native Plant Council) 2010. A Rogue’s Gallery of Invasive Non-native Plants of Alberta. Available at http://www.anpc.ab.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. Accessed October 2010.

Alberta Parks, Tourism and Recreation 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas. Available at: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/default.aspx . Accessed September 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2009. Alberta Ground Cover Classification. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/PreventingFightingWildfire/ScienceTechnology/Re moteSensing.aspx . Accessed September 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2005. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatus/StatusOfAlberta WildSpecies2005/Default.aspx . Accessed September 2010.

6-11

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Allen, L. 2010. Alberta Conservation Information Management System Ecological Community Tracking List. Available at: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/ecocommunities/default.aspx. September 2010.

Fiera Biological Consultants 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas: Provincial Update 2009. Available at: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/docs/01%20- %20ESA%20Executive%20Summary.pdf . Accessed September 2010.

Government of Alberta. 2010. Weed Control Act. Weed Control Regulation. Alberta Regulation 19/2010.Accessed September 2010. Available at: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=2010_019.cfm&leg_type=Regs&isbncln= 9780779748150 .

NatureServe 2009. NatureServe Conservation Status. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm. Accessed September 2010.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. Plants Database. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at http://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=ASCI4. Accessed October 2010.

6.4 Water Quality and Quantity

The Nosehill Creek Section will cross the Athabasca River and an unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River, which are both Class C watercourses as defined by the Alberta Water Act Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody (AENV 2006a). Both of these watercourses will be crossed using Horizontal Directional Drill technique. The Athabasca River is a source of water for downstream users and has high recreational value. Water quality data (temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen) was collected (during the fish and fish habitat assessment) for the Athabasca River to document baseline condition. Results of the baseline water quality data showed values that represent the normal range for the time of year samples were collected. See Section 6.5 Fish and Fish Habitat for more discussion on baseline water quality and quantity.

6.5 Fish and Fish Habitat

Fish and fish habitat were considered a VEC because of the economic and recreational importance of fisheries resources and the regulatory requirements of the Fisheries Act and Alberta Water Act.

The fish and fish habitat assessment documents the physical characteristics of the watercourses crossed by the Nosehill Creek Section and their fish habitat values. Under the Alberta Water Act Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody (AENV 2006a), a watercourse falls under the definition of a waterbody as “… a waterbody with defined bed and banks, whether or not water is continuously present, but does not include fish bearing lakes”. Under this definition, all natural or artificial channels (including streams, creeks, brooks, rivers and ditches) with defined bed and banks and perennial or intermittent flow are waterbodies. The definition of fish habitat is established by the federal

6-12

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Fisheries Act as “… spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes”.

6.5.1 Desktop Review

A preliminary desktop review included the identification of potential watercourse crossings along the route. The proposed route was plotted on 1:50,000 scale NTS topographic maps, the Alberta Water Act Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody (AENV 2006b) management area maps and on a 1:5,000 aerial photograph. Two potential watercourse crossings were identified, the Athabasca River and an unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River.

6.5.2 Field Assessment

The watercourse crossing on the Athabasca River was assessed by two fisheries biologists with participation from Aboriginal TEK community representatives during August 2010. The purpose of the field assessment was to document the biophysical characteristics of the crossing sites. The assessment considers the expected ZOI for each crossing which is the PDA plus the area downstream where 90% of the construction generated sediment would be expected to be deposited. For smaller watercourses, this is 300 m downstream of a crossing. On larger watercourses (Athabasca River), lower limits of the ZOI is is extended to 1000 m downstream of a crossing. Transects are established in the ZOI where detailed data is collected. The definition of ZOI is based on the Alberta Fish Habitat Manual (Alberta Transportation 2001).

6.5.2.1 Field Assessment and Results

Athabasca River

Habitat features in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing of the Athabasca River were identified and recorded. The Alberta Fish Habitat Manual (Alberta Transportation 2001) was used as a guideline to classify the fish habitat features. Type and location of habitat, cover composition and channel bottom substrate were identified and quantified to determine habitat quality and potential spawning habitat. Five transects were established at the Athabasca River crossing, one upstream of the crossing, one at the proposed crossing and three downstream of the crossing to collect habitat data. The ZOI for the Athabasca River was 100 m upstream to 1000 m downstream. Transects were established at at 100 m upstream and 100, 500 and 1,000 m downstream. The following data were recorded at each transect:

• channel width; • wetted width; • substrate composition; • functional cover type (instream and overhead) and abundance;

6-13

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

• stream habitat units; and • photographs upstream, downstream, left bank and right bank.

Data collected were used to compile an overview of functional habitat features and general channel morphology for the watercourse. The habitat requirements of species suspected to occur in the project area were considered when assessing the quality of the available habitat. An overall habitat rating was also assigned to the watercourse. Incidental fish sampling was carried out and combined with historic data to determine local fish community and potential windows for restricted activity periods. The restricted activity period (September 1 to July 15) is based on the Alberta Water Act Code of Practice management area maps and fish species that could potentially be present in the watercourse; the restricted activity period does not reflect the species that have actually been found.

The crossing on the Athabasca River (Table 6.5-1) was assessed for fish habitat and a data sheet, including photographs are provided in Appendix B.

Table 6.5-1 Assessment of Watercourse Crossing

Watercourse Name Athabasca River Assessment Location (Northing Easting) 11U 5971036 0492675 Date of Assessment 25/08/10 Watercourse Type Perennial Stream Class C Fish Species (captured and historical)* BRTR, BLTR, BURB, FNDC, GRAY, LNDC, LNSC, MNWH, NRPK, RNTR, SPSC, WHSC Habitat Rating Moderate to High Channel Width (m) 166 Wetted Width (m) 86

NOTE: * Fish Species: BRTR – brook trout, BLTR – bull trout, BURB – burbot, FNDC – finescale dace, GRAY – Arctic grayling, LNDC – longnose dace, LNSC – longnose sucker, MNWH – mountain whitefish, NRPK – northern pike, RNTR – rainbow trout, SPSC – spoonhead sculpin, WHSC – white sucker. The Athabasca River is one of the four major rivers in the province and considered an important fishery for recreational value. The stream gradient in the upper reaches of the river is sufficient to maintain a cobble and gravel substrate and high-velocity flows. Channel width at the proposed crossing site was 166 m with a wetted width of 86 m and a maximum water depth of 1.6 m. Other transects both upstream and downstream of the crossing ranged in channel width from 134 to 168 m with wetted widths of 73 to 144 m. The transect just downstream of the crossing with the smallest wetted width had a maximum water depth of 3.6 m. The river habitat consists mainly of run (>75%) which is associated with straight sections of the river. Riffle habitat is also present in some areas, especially where the channel is more complex. Few pools or backwater areas are present and are generally shallow areas associated with islands and side bars. Riparian vegetation consists of shrubs, and coniferous and deciduous species which in places are found to the water’s edge. Instream cover consists of larger cobbles, pools, surface

6-14

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011 turbulence and turbidity. The river in this area contains habitat rated as high for rearing, overwintering and migration, and moderate habitat for spawning for various species of fish.

Unnamed Tributary to the Athabasca River

This watercourse flows from a small lake, locally known as Rainbow Lake, located 4 km to the northwest of the crossing and joins the Athabasca River approximately 100 m downstream from the proposed crossing location. Habitat in the vicinity of the crossing is a mixture of cobbles and fine material, with stable banks and a dense riparian area. Wetted width was between 1 and 2 m and depth was between 0.3 and 0.5 m. Brook trout, rainbow trout and burbot were captured in this creek in September 2000 (ASRD 2010). The creek provides habitat for rearing sportfish and forage fish species. No field data was collected for the unnamed tributary. Data on the unnamed tributary was gathered through other the other biophysical field programs. Additional field assessment of the unnamed tributary is recommended prior to construction prior to undertaking the contingency crossing method, if required, in order to confirm watercourse and habitat features at the crossing location and to support a case-specific review by DFO.

6.5.2.2 Fish Community Sampling

Due to flow levels at the time of assessment, only incidental determination of fish presence/absence was completed for the Athabasca River crossing by angling. Incidental angling conducted during the habitat assessment produced four rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (1 juvenile and 3 mature fish). Additional fish sampling was not done at this site because of an abundance of data readily available through the ASRD Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS). In addition to the habitat assessment conducted by the fisheries crew and readily available data, TEK community participants stated that trout, Rocky Mountain whitefish and grayling are fished in watercourses of the Athabasca River watershed.

6.5.2.3 Water Quality

Basic water quality data collected in the Athabasca River to document baseline conditions included water temperature of 13.5°C, pH of 7.32, conductivity of 227 µS/cm, turbidity of 21.0 NTU, and dissolved oxygen of 9.87 mg/L. These values represent a normal range for this time (August) of year and would not restrict fish species presence.

6.5.2.4 Overall Habitat Ranking

Fish habitat was ranked for each watercourse and assigned to one of three categories (see Table 6.6-1).

6-15

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Table 6.6-1 Fish Habitat Ranking Categories

High Moderate Marginal • Species present are highly • Species present are moderately • Habitat with low productive sensitive to perturbations (e.g. resilient to change and capacity. many salmonidae). perturbation (e.g. pike, walleye). • Contributes only incidentally to • Presence of spawning or other • Habitat used by one or more subsistence, commercial or habitat critical to the survival of a sportfish species for feeding, recreational fishery. species (e.g. overwintering). growth and migration. • No suitable spawning habitat for • Habitat/Species is rare e.g. • Habitat typical of the sportfish sportfish and low sportfish Listed species under SARA. habitat in the region. Large rearing potential. • Permanently flowing, cold water amounts of similar habitat • Habitat has substantial systems that cannot easily readily available. limitations, e.g., generally buffer temperature changes or • Typically supports fish. sparse instream and overhead are not resilient to disturbance. cover with poor macro • Habitat essential to sustaining invertebrate abundance, low subsistence, commercial or flows, poor fish passage, no recreational fishery or species at overwintering capacity. risk. • Typically supports only forage species and suckers. The habitat quality in the vicinity of the crossing is moderate to excellent for various species of fish and habitat needs and supports several fish species. This rating is based on a significant capacity for productivity of a variety of fish species for part of the year, although the functional instream habitat is not unique to the crossing location, similar habitat is readily available nearby, upstream and downstream of the crossing. The Athabasca River in the project area is considered a Class C watercourse with a restricted activity period from September 1 to July 15 (AENV 2006b).

6.5.2.5 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

During field surveys members of Aboriginal groups were present and contributed their ecological knowledge and expertise. Observations provided by Aboriginal participants during the field survey were noted. TEK community participants stated they have not noticed a difference or decline in fish population size in the Athabasca River.

6.5.3 References

AENV. 2006a. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Waterbody. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta.

AENV. 2006b. Codes of Practice: Pipelines / Telecommunications lines crossing a water body / Water course crossings. Maps. Environment, Government of Alberta. http://www.environment.alberta.ca/02514.html (November 2010)

Alberta Transportation. 2001. Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines and Procedures for Watercourse Crossings in Alberta. Transportation, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

6-16

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

FWMIS. 2010. Fish and Wildlife Management Information System. Sustainable Resource Development, Government of Alberta. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesWildlifeManage mentInformationSystem/Default.aspx (November 2010)

CAPP. 2005. Pipeline-Associated Watercourse Crossings. 3rd Edition. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants and Salmo Consulting Inc., Calgary, Alberta for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association.

6.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The following section describes the baseline conditions of wildlife resources for the Nosehill Creek Section. A desktop review of regional information and a wildlife habitat assessment was conducted to assist in quantifying and describing baseline wildlife conditions within the assessment area. The field portion of the wildlife habitat assessment of the Nosehill Creek Section was conducted by wildlife biologists on August 27, 2010. The purpose of the wildlife habitat assessment was to identify sensitive wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the Nosehill Creek Section.

The spatial boundaries used for the assessment of project effects are described in Table 5.4-1.

6.6.1 Desktop Review

The Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) and ACIMS (formerly Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre) were queried for historical occurrences of species of management concern within the RAA.

6.6.1.1 Ecological Context

The Nosehill Creek Section traverses the Central Mixedwood and Lower Foothills natural subregions of Alberta (NRC 2006). The RAA is characterized by a mix of both native (forested and wetlands) and logged lands. The varying forest cover types along the Nosehill Creek Section support a diversity of wildlife species. General habitat encountered consists mainly of upland forest. A mixture of deciduous forest (trembling aspen), mixedwood forest (trembling aspen/lodgepole pine/white spruce) and confer dominated forest (lodgepole pine/white spruce), as well as riparian areas along the river and creek were observed.

Habitat for many of the wildlife species in the vicinity of the Nosehill Creek Section generally coincides with areas of native vegetation. Land use in the area includes oil and gas development activities and forestry. These developments and resource uses have resulted in direct habitat loss and habitat alteration in the vicinity of the Nosehill Creek Section. Clearing of vegetation, the creation of linear corridors and sensory disturbance associated with existing development and resource use has the potential to alter the distribution and movement of wildlife in the area. Some wildlife species are likely to have adapted to, or acclimated to current levels of human activity.

6-17

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.6.1.2 Key Wildlife Areas and Habitat Features

The PDA falls within and is adjacent to several wildlife management areas. A Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone, encompasses the Athabasca River in the RAA (ASRD 2010b). Grand Cache, a secondary grizzly bear zone overlies the LAA and RAA (ASRD 2010a). The Nosehill Creek Section does not overlap with any caribou ranges (ASRD 2010c).

There are no Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (NRC 2010), National Wildlife Areas (NRC 2010) or Important Bird Areas (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2004-2009) occurring within the RAA. The Nosehill Creek Section is not within any National or Provincial Parks (ASRD 2010d) nor does it traverse any conservation area or ecological reserve (ASRD 2010d).

An Environmentally Significant Area follows the Athabasca River through the project area (GOA 2009).

The wildlife habitat assessment was conducted to identify sensitive habitat (e.g., overwintering sites, migratory/staging areas, movement corridors, forest interior habitat) and critical wildlife features (e.g., nests, dens mineral licks). The Athabasca River could potentially serve as a movement corridor for various wildlife species through the project area. An active squirrel midden was observed approximately 80m southwest of the PDA within close proximity to the Athabasca River. During the field survey, aboriginal participants recollected the following habitat features in the vicinity of the Nosehill Creek Section:

• Mineral Licks: One in the area of Burnt Bone Creek and a couple within 5 km of the east side of the river; and • Bear Dens: One or two on the west side of the Athabasca River, south of the Nosehill Creek Section.

6.6.1.3 Species of Management Concern

Species of management concern are determined by assessing the ecological, human and economic importance of wildlife species that occur in the region surrounding a project. Determining the ecological importance of wildlife can be approached through reviewing their conservation status. Wildlife species are assigned status rankings based on many factors; including population decline and sensitivity to disturbances. The following federal and provincial conservation status rankings were used:

• Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2010); • Species at Risk Act (SARA 2010); • Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD 2005); and • Alberta Wildlife Act (ASRD 2010e).

It should be noted that woodland caribou ranges (ASRD 2010b, ASRD 2010c) fall outside of the RAA and therefore were not evaluated as a species of management concern (Table 6.7-1).

Only those waterfowl species of conservation concern were included as species of management concern. Habitat requirements for deer overlap with those of other ungulates assessed within this EA; therefore

6-18

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

deer are not assessed further. Black bear are not assessed further as habitat requirements for grizzly bear will cover those of black bear.

A total of 63 species of management concern have ranges that overlap with the RAA, however, only 45 of these species have suitable habitat in the RAA. All of the species of management concern are summarized in Table 6.6-2.

Table 6.6-2 Species of Management Concern that Could Potentially Occur in the RAA

Species of COSEWIC SARA ASRD AWA Human or Habitat Common (2010) (2010) (2005) (2010) Economic Available Name Latin Name status status status status Importance in RAA Birds Pied-billed Podilymbus Sensitive Grebe podiceps Western Aechmophorus Sensitive Special Grebe occidentalis Concern Horned Podiceps auritus Special No Status Sensitive Grebe Concern (No schedule) American Botaurus Sensitive Bittern lentiginosus Great Blue Ardea herodias Sensitive Heron Trumpeter Cygnus buccinator At Risk Threatened 9 Swan Northern Anas acuta Sensitive 9 Pintail Green- Anas crecca Sensitive 9 winged Teal Lesser Aythya affinis Sensitive 9 Scaup White- Melanitta fusca Sensitive Special 9 winged Concern Scoter Northern Circus cyaneus Sensitive Harrier Northern Accipiter gentilis Sensitive 9 Goshawk Broad- Buteo platypterus Sensitive 9 winged Hawk Golden Aquila chrysaetos Sensitive 9 9 Eagle Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Sensitive 9 9 leucocephalus Peregrine Falco peregrinus Special No Status At Risk Threatened 9 Falcon anatum/tundrius Concern (No schedule)

6-19

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Table 6.6-2 Species of Management Concern that Could Potentially Occur in the RAA (cont’d)

Species of COSEWIC SARA ASRD AWA Human or Habitat Common (2010) (2010) (2005) (2010) Economic Available Name Latin Name status status status status Importance in RAA Birds (cont’d) Osprey Pandion haliaetus Sensitive 9 Ruffed Bonasa umbellus 9 9 Grouse Sharp-tailed Tympanuchus Sensitive Grouse phasianellus Sora Porzana carolina Sensitive Black Tern Chlidonias niger Sensitive Sandhill Grus canadensis Sensitive Crane Upland Bartramia Sensitive Sandpiper longicauda Barred Owl Strix varia Sensitive Special 9 Concern Great Gray Strix nebulosa Sensitive 9 Owl Northern Surnia ulula Sensitive 9 Hawk Owl Northern Glaucidium gnoma Sensitive 9 Pygmy-owl Short-eared Asio flammeus Special Special May Be 9 Owl Concern Concern at Risk (Schedule 3) Common Chordeiles minor Threatened Threatened Sensitive 9 Nighthawk (Schedule 1) Black- Picoides arcticus Sensitive 9 backed Woodpecker Pileated Dryocopus pileatus Sensitive 9 Woodpecker Least Empidonax Sensitive 9 Flycatcher minimus Olive-sided Contopus cooperi Threatened Threatened Secure 9 Flycatcher (Schedule 1) Eastern Sayornis phoebe Sensitive 9 Phoebe Barn Hirundo rustica Sensitive 9 Swallow Purple Progne subis Sensitive 9 Martin Brown Certhia americana Sensitive 9 Creeper

6-20

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Table 6.6-2 Species of Management Concern that Could Potentially Occur in the RAA (cont’d)

Species of COSEWIC SARA ASRD AWA Human or Habitat Common (2010) (2010) (2005) (2010) Economic Available Name Latin Name status status status status Importance in RAA Birds (cont’d) Canada Wilsonia Threatened Threatened Sensitive 9 Warbler canadensis (Schedule 1) Cape May Dendroica tigrina Sensitive Endangered 9 Warbler Bay- Dendroica Sensitive Endangered 9 breasted castanea Warbler Black- Dendroica virens Sensitive 9 throated Green Warbler Common Geothlypis trichas Sensitive 9 Yellowthroat Western Piranga Sensitive 9 Tanager ludoviciana Rusty Euphagus Special Special Sensitive Blackbird carolinus Concern Concern (Schedule 1) Baltimore Icterus galbula Sensitive 9 Oriole Mammals Elk Cervus elaphus 9 9 Moose Alces alces 9 9 Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Sensitive 9 9 Marten Martes americana 9 9 Fisher Martes pennanti Sensitive 9 9 Long-tailed Mustela frenata May Be Weasel at Risk Wolverine Gulo gulo Special No Status May Be Data 9 Concern (No at Risk Deficient schedule) Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Special No Status May Be Threatened 9 Concern (No at Risk schedule) Gray Wolf Canis Lupus 9 9 American Castor canadensis 9 9 Beaver Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus 9 9 hudsonicus

6-21

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Table 6.6-2 Species of Management Concern that Could Potentially Occur in the RAA (cont’d)

Species of COSEWIC SARA ASRD AWA Human or Habitat Common (2010) (2010) (2005) (2010) Economic Available Name Latin Name status status status status Importance in RAA Mammals (cont’d) Silver-haired Lasionycteris Sensitive 9 Bat noctivagans Northern Myotis May Be Data 9 Long-eared septentrionalis at Risk Deficient Bat Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Sensitive 9 Herptiles Wandering Thamnophis Sensitive 9 Garter elegans Snake Red-sided Thamnophis sirtalis Sensitive 9 Garter Snake Northern Lithobates pipiens Special Special At Risk Threatened 9 Leopard Concern Concern Frog (Schedule 1) Western Anaxyrus boreas Special Special Sensitive 9 Toad Concern Concern (Schedule 1) References: Amphibian and Reptile range and distribution we determined using: Russell, A.P. and A.M. Bauer. 2000. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Alberta, A Field Guide and Primer of Boreal Herpetology.University of Calgary Press. Calgary, Alberta. Mammal range distribution was determined using: Pattie, D. and C. Fisher. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing. Edmonton, Alberta. Bat range and distribution was determined using: Alberta Conservation Association, Government of Alberta, Friends of the Environment Foundation, Bat Conservation International, Alberta Bat Action Team. 2006. Bats of Alberta (poster). Bird ranges and distributions were taken from: Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists. Edmonton, Alberta. There are no recorded historical references of any of the wildlife species of management concern in the RAA; however grizzly bear, western toad, barred owl, trumpeter swan and woodland caribou are documented within 15 km of the PDA (ASRD 2010b). During the wildlife habitat assessment of the Nosehill Creek Section, three wildlife species of concern were identified; bald eagle and moose were visually confirmed, and elk tracks were observed.

6.6.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Species of human importance are defined as those identified as valuable through TEK interviews. During TEK interviews, hunting and food value was expressed for moose, elk, deer and formerly caribou. It was noted during the survey that some of the Aboriginal participants indicated this area as former habitat for caribou as community members used to hunt caribou in this area. As well rabbit trails and tracks were observed and aboriginal participants identified the area as rabbit country. The RAA was thought to

6-22

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011 represent good habitat for moose, elk, deer, black bear and grizzlies. Ruffed Grouse were identified as having cultural value during interviews, but observed the number of spruce grouse and partridge has decreased in recent years. Eagles, Wolf and Red Squirrel are included as they are generally valued by First Nations. Aboriginal participants observed that cut lines and developed areas allow greater access for the cow bird which threatens the local bird population. Species of economic concern include those that are actively hunted in Alberta, such as waterfowl, moose, elk, deer, bear, fisher, marten and beaver.

6.6.3 Field Assessment

The wildlife reconnaissance survey was conducted on August 27th, 2010. The PDA was surveyed by two wildlife biologists both on foot and by quad, and included Aboriginal participants. Specific areas of Aboriginal interest in relation to wildlife species of concern were identified along the route and explored in detail. TEK observations are included in the relevant results.

The purpose of the survey was to assess wildlife use and to identify any important habitat features (mineral licks, wetlands, nests and dens) that may occur within or immediately adjacent to the Nosehill Creek Section. The timing of the survey did not coincide with the optimal survey detection periods for many of the species of management concern. Therefore, the survey primarily focused on the observation and documentation of wildlife use and the presence of any important habitat features. Incidental observations of any species of management concern by sight, sound or sign were also recorded.

6.6.3.1 Results of Field Assessment

A summary of wildlife observations and/or habitat features is provided in Table 6.6-3.

Table 6.6-3 Wildlife Observations, sign and habitat features

Species Observations Comments Moose Two moose were observed in the LAA Bald eagle Observed in the LAA Ungulate sign (elk tracks, elk and moose pellets) Observed within LAA Bear activity (scat, turned over rocks and boulders) Observed within the LAA Active squirrel midden Observed 80 m southwest of the PDA within close proximity to the Athabasca River No additional pre-construction surveys are recommended for the Nosehill Creek Section.

6.6.4 References

Alberta Conservation Association (ACA), Government of Alberta, Friends of the Environment Foundation, Bat Conservation International, Alberta Bat Action Team. 2006. Bats of Alberta (poster).

6-23

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2005. Status of Alberta Wild Species 2005. Government of Alberta. Accessed on 15Oct10. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatus/StatusOfAlberta WildSpecies2005/Search.aspx

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010a. Wildlife Sensitivity Maps - Data Sets: Landscape Analysis Tool. Government of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. Accessed on: 27Oct10. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsPublications/Maps/WildlifeSensitivityMaps/Default.aspx

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010b. Internet Mapping Framework. Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) Internet Mapping Tool. Government of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. Accessed on: 15Oct10 Available at: http://xnet.env.gov.ab.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=fw_mis_pub

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010c. Wildlife Sensitivity Maps - Data Sets: Caribou Ranges. Government of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. Accessed on: 20Oct10. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsPublications/Maps/WildlifeSensitivityMaps/Default.aspx

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010d. Provincial Digital Base Map Data; Alberta Boundary Data. AltaLIS. Accessed on: 24Aug10. Available at: http://www.altalis.com/prod_base_bound.html

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010e. Alberta Species at Risk - Species Assessed by Alberta’s Endangered Species Conservation Committee: Short List. Government of Alberta, Wildlife Management Branch, Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, Alberta. Available at: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/SpeciesSummaries/documents/ SpeciesAssessed-EndangeredSpeciesConservationCommittee-ShortList-Jun03-2010.pdf

Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada. 2004-2009. Important Bird Areas of Canada Database. Bird Studies Canada. Port Rowan, Ontario. Accessed on 22Oct10. Available at: http://www.ibacanada.com

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2010. Wildlife Species Search: Database of wildlife species assessed by COSEWIC. Government of Canada. Accessed on 15Oct10. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm

Department of Justice Canada. 2010. Migratory Bird Regulations: General Prohibitions. Government of Canada. Accessed on 18Oct10. Available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C.R.C.- c.1035/index.html

Federation of Alberta Naturalists (FAN). 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists. Edmonton, Alberta.

Government of Canada. 2010. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada Species at Risk Database. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm . Accessed September 2010.

6-24

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Government of Alberta (GOA). 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas. Government of Alberta, Department of Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Accessed on: 22Oct10. Available at: http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/default.aspx

Government of Canada (GOC). 1994. Migratory Bird Convention Act. Minister of Justice, Government of Canada. Available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/M/M-7.01.pdf

Gregoire, P. Wildlife Biologist, Canadian Wildlife Services, Environment Canada. Personal communication. Email on 05Feb09, discussing sensitive window for migratory birds with relation to vegetation clearing for development in the Athabasca oil sands region.

Lynch-Stewart, P. 2004. Environmental Assessment Best Practice Guide for Wildlife at Risk in Canada. Canadian Wildlife Services and Environment Canada. Gatineau, Quebec. Accessed on: 09Nov10. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/publications/5407909E-10F6-4AFE-ACDF- 75B9E820B4A1/CWSEAbestPracticeGuide2004.pdf

National Energy Board (NEB). 2004. Filing Manual; Revised November 2009. Government of Canada. Accessed on: October 2010. Available at: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf- nsi/rpblctn/ctsndrgltn/flngmnl/flngmnl-eng.pdf

Natural Regions Committee (NRC). 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852.

Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2010. Atlas of Canada 1,000,000 National Frameworks Data, Protected Areas. Government of Canada. Accessed on: 20Oct10. Available at: http://www.geogratis.ca/geogratis/en/collection/detail.do?id=BA8D1149-7714-EC04-343B- 6AFEC3BDA84A

Pattie, D. and C. Fisher. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing. Edmonton, Alberta.

Russell, A.P. and A.M. Bauer. 2000. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Alberta, A Field Guide and Primer of Boreal Herpetology. University of Calgary Press. Calgary, Alberta.

Species at Risk Public Registry (SARA). 2010. Species search. Government of Canada. Accessed on 15Oct10. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm

6.7 Atmospheric Environment

There are no direct combustion or emission sources associated with the Nosehill Creek Section. However, construction and operational maintenance equipment and vehicles will generate small quantities of criteria air contaminants (CACs) through the burning of hydrocarbon fuel (such as gasoline and diesel). The quantity of CACs, such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide (CO) emitted are minor, localized, short-term, and transient in nature and any potential project effects will be minimized through the use of standard equipment operation practices that are known to effectively mitigate potential effects on the receiving environment.

6-25

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.8 Acoustic Environment

There is no noise generating facilities associated with the Nosehill Creek Section. Although construction and maintenance equipment will generate small amounts of noise, it is expected to be intermittent, and transient, as it moves along the RoW. There are no residences located in close proximity to the Nosehill Creek Section (i.e. within 1.5 km), minimizing the potential for interaction between the acoustic environment and socio-economic components.

6.9 Human Occupancy, Resource and Land Use

6.9.1 Human Occupancy

The Nosehill Creek Section is located within Yellowhead County, Alberta. Population density in the County is substantially lower than the average for the province. As of 2006, mean population density was 0.5 persons per square kilometre, compared with a mean density of 5.1 for the province as a whole (Statistics Canada 2010). There are no identified permanent residences within the RAA. The nearest municipalities to the Nosehill Creek Section are the towns of Hinton, approximately 60 km to the southwest, Fox Creek, approximately 60 km to the NE, and Edson, approximately 50 km to the south east.

6.9.2 Regional Land Use Districts

The project falls within the Upper Athabasca Land Use Region. No Land Use Regional Plans have been developed for the region to date.

Lands within the RAA are predominantly boreal forest. The LAA includes two Forest Management Units (FMUs). Both are within the Upper Athabasca Land Use Framework Region: FMUs E3 and E6. Both FMUs are operated by West Fraser Mills Ltd. Portions of the PDA fall within both FMUs.

The Yellowhead County’s Land Use Bylaw allows for the development of Area Structure Plans (ASPs) within the County. The RAA does not include any areas subject to ASPs.

Surface dispositions are issued for the use of public lands in Alberta. Surface dispositions crossed by the Nosehill Creek Section are included in Table 6.9-1.

Table 6.9-1 Surface Dispositions

Percentage Overlapping Surface Disposition Definition the Project Area (%) LOC License of occupation 0.91 MSL Mineral surface lease 1.71 PIL Pipeline installation lease 1.94 PLA Pipeline agreement 92.84

6-26

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.9.3 Recreation, Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) are the basis for provincial wildlife management policy and legislation. The Nosehill Creek Section is located within WMUs 344 and 346. Game species in the area include black bear, ungulates, game birds, and a variety of furbearing species. The regulations also list cougar as an available species for harvest but no data on cougar yields is currently available. Four species of ungulates are available to harvest depending on current hunting regulations including: white- tailed deer, mule deer, elk and moose (Table 6.9-2). There were 9 black bears harvested in WMU 344 in 2009.

Table 6.9-2 Estimated Harvest Success for Resident Big Game for WMUs 344 and 346 – 2009

Estimated Harvest Success Species WMU 344 WMU 346 Black Bear 9 41 Elk 55 123 Moose 49 127 Mule Deer 10 49 White-Tailed Deer 309 973 SOURCE: ASRD 2009. Resident Hunters Harvest. June 2010 Retrieved from http://www.mywildalberta.com/Hunting/GameSpecies/ResidentHuntersHarvest.aspx, October 27, 2010. Species available for trapping within the WMU include fisher, lynx, otter and wolverine. Basic quotas (for Registered Fur Management Areas two townships in size or less) for WMUs 344 and 346 are presented in Table 6.9-3.

Table 6.9-3 Registered Fur Management Area Quotas for WMUs 344 and 346

Species Basic Quota Fisher 3 Lynx 5 Otter 2 Wolverine 1

SOURCE: ASRD 2010. Quotas & Fur Seasons. Retrieved from http://www.albertaregulations.ca/trappingregs/quotas.htm, October 31, 2010. The Nosehill Creek Section is located entirely within the Eastern Slopes Fish Management Zone 1 (ASRD 2009) in Alberta. The PDA crosses the Athabasca River; additionally within the LAA there are streams which have the potential to support sport fish species but are not crossed by the Nosehill Creek Section. An assessment of fisheries potential of the Athabasca River is provided in Section 6.6 of this ESA.

6-27

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.9.4 References

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2009. Alberta SRD – Fish Management Zones. December 2009. Retrieved from http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishingHuntingTrapping/FishManagementZones/Default.aspx, October 25, 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2009a. Resident Hunters Harvest. June 2010 Retrieved from http://www.mywildalberta.com/Hunting/GameSpecies/ResidentHuntersHarvest.aspx, October 27, 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2010. Quotas & Fur Seasons. Retrieved from http://www.albertaregulations.ca/trappingregs/quotas.htm, October 31, 2010.

Statistics Canada 2010. 2006 Community Profiles – Census Subdivision. February 2010. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4814003&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=yellowhead&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=, November 1, 2010.

6.10 Heritage and Paleontological Resources

An HRIA, assessing areas of high archaeological potential within the proposed pipeline RoW, was conducted under archaeological Permit 2010-195 in September 2010. During the HRIA, targeted areas of archaeological potential were selected and tested using in-field observations; tested areas were within the planned footprint for the pipeline RoW. Areas with the highest archaeological potential, primarily those associated with watercourses or those located on landforms observed to be elevated and well-drained, were assessed through shovel testing and visual inspection of exposures.

A Historical Resources Impact Assessment for palaeontology was completed on September 2, 2010, focusing on the east valley slope of the Athabasca River. There are no surface palaeontological sites currently in conflict with the proposed crossing of the Athabasca River. While some of the bedrock facies in the area have potential to contain vertebrate remains, none have high palaeontological potential and the overall palaeontological potential is considered moderate. If the horizontal direction drill crossing is successful, there will be minimal disturbance of bedrock. The chance of impacts to palaeontological resources is considered low. If the open cut contingency crossing is used, some bedrock will be disturbed along the river bed and along the southeast bank (lower terrace). The chance of impacts to palaeontological resources is considered low to moderate. If shell or plant beds are encountered during a

6-28

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011 potential open cut crossing, it is recommended that NGTL bring in a palaeontologist to sample the fossil site. No further palaeontological studies or construction monitoring are recommended for the Nosehill Creek Section.

6.10.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Data recorded during the traditional knowledge studies has been reviewed for heritage and paleontological resources information. The recorded mastodon site is 15 to 30 km away from the Nosehill Creek Section and was not investigated. Petrified wood was recorded along the shores of the Athabasca River. This material is likely part of the glaciofluvial gravel deposits, representing reworked Cretaceous fossils that originated outside the study area. It is not from the local (i.e., in situ) Paleocene Paskapoo Formation bedrock and is considered a palaeontological resource with low heritage value.

6.11 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Land Use

Traditional Knowledge (TK) information for this project was gathered through two processes: Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) studies and Traditional Land Use (TLU) studies. This section describes each in detail, including information on the participating Aboriginal communities. TLU studies were in the process of being scoped with each community at the time of writing (see Section 7.13); as such, TLU information may be submitted to the NEB as supplementary information upon completion of the studies.

The main objectives of gathering TK information in relation to the Nosehill Creek Section are to:

• provide traditional ecological knowledge to biophysical and socio-economic disciplines to incorporate into the ESA; • enable Aboriginal communities to evaluate potential impacts to traditional land use activities and areas, and discuss mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate identified impacts; and • solicit recommendations for mitigation measures (including those based on traditional ecological knowledge) directly from Aboriginal communities and participants as they relate to traditional land use and other components of the ESA.

Aboriginal communities engaged through the Aboriginal consultation program for the Nosehill Creek Section were contacted regarding opportunities to participate in TEK and TLU studies. These communities include:

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation is signatory to Treaty 6 and members of the Nation are of Stoney descent. There are currently 1,674 members, with 59% of people living on one of four reserves: Alexis 133, Alexis Cardinal River 234, Alexis Elk River 233 and Alexis Whitecourt 232. Alexis 133 is the largest reserve and the location of administrative offices (Alberta Government Aboriginal Relations website, 2010). As noted on the the Nation’s website: “The Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation is the most northern member of the Siouan language family. Although closely related to their Cree neighbors through intermarriage and centuries of

6-29

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011 neighborly interaction, Alexis’ maintained its cultural uniqueness as a Nakota Nation” (Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation website, 2010).

Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada

Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada, translated from Cree as ‘the Rocky Mountain People’, are descendents primarily of Cree people “who moved west with the fur trade and integrated with tribes in the eastern Rocky Mountains” (Aseniwuche Winewak Nation website 2010). As a result, Aseniwuche Winewak ancestry also includes Iroquois, Beaver, Sekani, Assiniboine, Ojibwa and Shuswap. “Our traditional territory spanned…from Jasper north to Grande Prairie; from McBride east to Lac Ste. Anne.” (Aseniwuche Winewak Nation website 2010). The Aseniwuche Winewak families who resided near Jasper were evicted with the formation of Jasper Nation Park in the early 1900s. Today, the community is located in the Grande Cache, Alberta area. The Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada was formed in 1994 and has over 400 members. “…Our community has no recognized Constitutional status…[and was] never part of a treaty process” (Aseniwuche Winewak Nation website 2010). In the early 1970s, Aseniwuche Winewak people and the government of Alberta came to an agreement, establishing landholdings through four cooperatives and two enterprises comprising 4,150 acres of land near Grande Cache (Aseniwuche Winewak Nation website 2010). The cooperatives and enterprises are “legal entities created to hold title to land granted the Grande Cache Aboriginal people by the province” (McCully 1997).

Foothills Ojibway Society

Foothills Ojibway Society is comprised of 270 members, who are non-status Ojibway people. Foothills Ojibway Society was established in 1951, when the group separated from the O’Chiese Band, signatories of Treaty 6. Foothills Ojibway Society traditional territory extends from Grande Prairie, Alberta, in the north and to Rocky Boy, Montana, in the south. From east to west, it runs from Jasper National Park, Alberta, to Manito Lake, Saskatchewan (J. O’Chiese, pers. comm. 2010). The administrative office of Foothills Ojibway Society is located in Hinton, Alberta.

Marlboro Community Association

Members of Marlboro Community Association are mostly Cree-speaking Métis, and the Association is affiliated with the Métis Nation of Alberta. The administrative office is located in Marlboro, Alberta, between Edson and Hinton. The Hamlet of Marlboro was established in 1912 to support the development of a calcium carbonate deposit (marl) and associated cement mill, which created an influx of people to the area. This mining activity gave Marlboro its name (marl-boro). The mine operated until the 1930s, and many people and businesses left the community at that time. Areas surrounding Edson, Hinton, Grande Cache and Whitecourt are actively used for traditional purposes by Marlboro Community Association members (B.Belcourt and G.Brandenburg, pers. comm. 2010).

6-30

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

Nakcowinewak Nation

Nakcowinewak Nation members have Saulteau and Cree ancestry, and most speak Saulteau. Until 1937, Nakcowinewak Nation families lived in the Rocky Mountain House area, and then travelled to Marlboro, to the Whitecourt and Fox Creek areas, to Hinton, and to other areas following this time. The Nakcowinewak Nation was formed in 1998 and includes over 200 non-status members. Most members live in Hinton, Alberta, but some have moved away from the area for employment. The Nation’s administrative office is located in Hinton, Alberta (J.Whitehorse, pers. comm. 2010).

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is signatory to Treaty 8, and is a member of the Western Cree Tribal Council. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is located in the Sturgeon Lake area, 20 km west of Valleyview and has over 2,700 members, just over half of which live on-reserve. SLCN has three reserves on the shore of Sturgeon Lake (Sturgeon Lake 154, 154A and 154B) (Alberta Government Aboriginal Relations website, 2010).

6.11.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

The primary objective of the TEK program was to provide information to biophysical and socio-economic disciplines to inform the environmental assessment, as well as to identify potential project effects relative to these disciplines and recommendations for mitigation measures from a traditional knowledge perspective.

TEK field surveys were conducted in conjunction with wildlife, archaeology, vegetation, paleontology, and fisheries disciplines. TK facilitators were present with each crew in the field, in order to guide and record discussions between Aboriginal participants and biophysical discipline members. These assessments took place in August and September 2010.

The following communities participated in the TEK studies for the Nosehill Creek Section:

• Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation; • Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada; • Foothills Ojibway Society; • Marlboro Community Association; • Nakcowinewak Nation; and • Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation.

During the TEK field program, TK facilitators took notes, pictures, and GPS locations as directed by participants. Prior to this work commencing, facilitators provided project information, explained the purpose of the TEK studies and how this information would be used in the assessment and that any information shared during the study would be made public through the environmental assessment

6-31

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011 process. Participants were asked to clearly identify confidential information so that information could be protected. TK facilitators provided this information to participants both verbally and in writing.

Once the TEK program was completed, information collected by TK facilitators was provided to the participating communities, biophysical and socio-economic disciplines, and NGTL project personnel.

TEK studies were focused on the PDA, the footprint associated with construction of the Nosehill Creek Section, mirroring field assessments being conducted by the biophysical disciplines. No temporal boundary was imposed on the TEK information provided by Aboriginal community members in light of the fact that TEK is multi-generational and that information with this time perspective is in itself valuable to the disciplines assessments. Each ESA component discipline used the temporal boundaries appropriate to their disciplines for the assessment of project effects.

Results from the TEK studies are presented in applicable discipline specific sections of the ESA.

NGTL is working with communities to address any concerns that may have been raised through the TEK program.

6.11.2 Traditional Land Use

The main objectives in undertaking TLU studies for the Nosehill Creek Section are to describe how the project area is used by Aboriginal communities for traditional purposes, to identify how the Nosehill Creek Section might affect this use, and to solicit mitigation recommendations from Aboriginal participants.

TLU studies for the Nosehill Creek Section are conducted in collaboration with TK facilitators, with varying degrees of support ranging from providing project information for the community to use in conducting an independent study, to conducting the study in conjunction with personnel from the Aboriginal community. These studies are undertaken separately by each Aboriginal community, and are designed through meetings and discussions with each community so the study can meet both regulatory and community goals and requirements.

TLU studies typically include some of the following phases:

• Scoping (determining study components and costs); • Literature review and background information collection; • Interviews (with selected traditional knowledge holders and land users); • Field visits (ground-truthing important sites in the vicinity of the Nosehill Creek Section); • Mapping (digitizing spatial information from interviews and field visits); • Analysis and reporting (summarizing information provided, sorting the information thematically and producing a summary report for the study); and • Report review (validating information contained in the report and ensuring the information presented is accurate and respects confidentiality).

6-32

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.11.2.1 Communities Involved in TLU Studies

Offers to undertake TLU studies have been extended to all communities engaged on this project. The following describes the current status of TLU studies for each community.

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation

The TLU study is being scoped. A proposal was expected from the community in late 2010 but it has not been received yet.

Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada

This community reviewed the project area during involvement in the TEK program and indicated that a TLU study was not necessary.

Foothills Ojibway Society

This community is interested in undertaking a TLU study and is working on a proposal.

Marlboro Community Association

The TLU study for Marlboro Community Association consists of field visits and a report review, and is being led by Stantec TK facilitators, in collaboration with Marlboro Community Association. Interviews and field visits were conducted in November 2010, and the study is ongoing.

Nakcowinewak Nation

This community reviewed the project area during involvement in the TEK program and indicated that a TLU study was not necessary.

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation

The TLU study is being scoped. A proposal was expected from the community in late 2010 but it has not been received yet.

6.11.2.2 Results of Traditional Land Use Studies

Results for TLU studies are not currently available, and will be summarized and submitted to the NEB as supplemental information once the studies and final reports have been completed.

6-33

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.11.3 References

Alberta Government Aboriginal Relations. Métis Settlement and First Nations in Alberta: Community Profiles. http://www.aboriginal.alberta.ca/documents/MetisSettlement_FirstNation_Profile.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2010.

Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation website. 2010. Available at http://www.alexisnakotasioux.com/. Accessed October 25, 2010.

Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada website. 2010. Available at: http://www.aseniwuche.com/. Accessed October 25, 2010.

McCully, Al. 1997 (September). Aseniwuche Winewak Nation Work Plan. Palliser Alliances: Edmonton, Alberta.

6.12 Social and Cultural Well-Being

The Nosehill Creek Section is located within a low population forested area of the province. There are no identified permanent residences within the RAA. The nearest population centres are the towns of Hinton, approximately 60 km to the southwest, Fox Creek, approximately 60 km to the NE, and Edson, approximately 50 km to the south east. Lands within the RAA are predominantly boreal forest and include two FMUs which are operated by West Fraser Mills locally based out of Hinton. The region has seen a variety of oil and gas exploration along with pipeline installation (such as the NGTL Grande Prairie Mainline). In non-forested areas within the RAA, other industry activity includes agriculture.

6.13 Infrastructure and Services

The Region’s infrastructure and services include roads, railways and accommodations that will be relied upon during construction of the Nosehill Creek Section. Highway 16 (Trans Canada Yellowhead Highway) and private forestry and oil / gas roads (e.g., Willow Creek Road) will be used to access the Nosehill Creek Section on both sides of the Athabasca River. These private roads are gravel and capable of accommodating heavy vehicle traffic.

Hotels and motels in Hinton will be relied upon to house the construction workers. There are 1,125 rooms in Hinton.

Emergency Services are available in Hinton and includes police, fire, and ambulance services. A full service hospital consisting of 18 acute care beds is available in Hinton.

Water required and wastewater generated by the project will be trucked in and out. Wastewater will be disposed of at licensed treatment facilities. Similarly, solid waste will be trucked to landfills licensed to accept / treat solid wastes.

6-34

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 6.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions February 2011

6.14 Employment and Economy

The regional economy is balanced and consists of agriculture, forestry, oil and gas, tourism and regional services (retail, health, education, government, etc.). The region is anchored by two urban centres: Hinton and Edson. The Nosehill Creek Section is located in Yellowhead County and the population breakdown within 50 km of the Nosehill Creek Section is estimated below:

Municipality Population (2009)

Yellowhead County 2,009

M.D. of Greenview 55

Town of Edson 8,365

Town of Hinton 9,825

TOTAL POPULATION 20,254

The labour force within 50 km of the Nosehill Creek Section is estimated at 12,150 people and the unemployment rate in September, 2010 was 5.4%.

6.15 Human Health

There are no human receptors within close proximity of the Nosehill Creek Section. There are no planned facility emissions that could affect human health. See Atmospheric Emissions/Air Quality for a discussion of localized construction and maintenance emissions.

6-35

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

7.1 Introduction

This section of the ESA provides an assessment of predicted environmental and socio-economic effects of the Nosehill Creek Section. VECs and VSCs that were determined to have potential interactions with the Nosehill Creek Section are listed in Table 5.3-1. A summary of project effects on each VEC or VSC are listed in Table 7.15-1. A summary of residual effects after mitigation is provided in Table 9-1.

7.1.1 Criteria Used to Assess Residual Effects

Table 7.1-1 Criteria Used to Assess Residual Effects

Criteria Value Definition Direction Positive The expected long-term trend of the effect will not result in a loss of the VEC Negative The expected long-term trend of the effect will result in a loss of the VEC Magnitude Negligible or Low The project will have little to no measurable effect on landscape, community or species distributions and diversity Moderate The project will alter landscape, community and species distributions, but will not reduce diversity High The project will alter landscape, community and species distributions and reduce diversity Geographic Extent Site specific The extent of the effect is within the PDA Local The extent of the effect is within the LAA Sub-Regional The extent of the effect is within the RAA Regional The extent of the effect extends beyond the RAA Duration Short Term Less than one year Medium Term More than one year but not beyond the life of the project Long Term Beyond the life of the project Frequency Once The number of times during the project or a specific project phase that an effect could occur (occurs once) intermittent The number of times during the project or a specific project phase that an effect could occur (occurs at intermittent intervals) Regular The number of times during the project or a specific project phase that an effect could occur (occurs on a regular basis) Continuous The number of times during the project or a specific project phase that an effect could occur (occurs continually) Reversibility Reversible The VEC or measurable parameter is predicted to recover from an effect Irreversible The VEC is predicted to not recover from an effect

7-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

The magnitude, extent and duration of residual project effects were considered to determine significance. Significance reflects the potential for the project to contribute to permanent changes and is divided into two categories:

• not significant – the project will have nil to short to medium-term, reversible effect on a VEC or VSC; and • significant – the project will have a long-term, irreversible effect on a VEC or VSC.

7.2 Physical Environment

There are no unique physical features (e.g. permafrost, unique bedrock outcrops) within the PDA. The Nosehill Creek Section will result in disturbance to the landscape as a result of RoW preparation and construction that may result in changes to surface contours and may result in risks associated with erosion and sedimentation. The project will interact with forest soils and could potentially affect soil productivity. For forested ecosystems, a number of standard mitigation measures exist to manage potential project effects, as well as managing risks on pipeline projects. The following mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate any potential effects:

• avoid vegetation root disturbance by using alternate stump removal procedures such as grinding/mulching, where practical; • in areas where grading is required, salvage the organic layer and store the stripped material separately from trench spoil material; • minimize grading throughout the RoW, to the extent feasible; • avoid mixing snow with spoil during backfilling; • implement the Spill Contingency Plan during construction in the event of an accident or malfunction to avoid or minimize forest soil contamination; • If adverse weather conditions have the potential to impact soils, implement contingency measures or suspend construction until adverse conditions abate; • to reduce the potential for trench line subsidence, all available spoil will be crowned over the trench line to allow for settlement; • implement the Adverse Weather Contingency Plan or Wet/Thawed Soil Contingency Plan, Spill Contingency Plan, and Fire Contingency Plan, as warranted.install sediment and erosion control measures following completion of construction; • re-contour the construction RoW and restore the preconstruction grades and drainage channels; • reclaim disturbed areas as soon as practical following completion of construction; and • monitor the pipeline RoW on a routine basis following construction. Conduct a Post-Construction Monitoring Program.

7-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

The planned late summer through early winter construction schedule will reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation during construction. However, sediment and erosion control measures (e.g., permanent and temporary diversion berms) should be installed as soon as feasible following construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation during the following spring thaw.

With the application of these standard mitigation practices, the potential residual effects on the physical environment are expected to be negative, low magnitude, site specific, occurs once, of short to medium duration, reversible and are therefore judged to be not significant. Predication confidence is high.

7.3 Vegetation and Wetlands

The potential project effects for vegetation and wetlands include:

• Changes in vegetation diversity; • Reduction in old seral stage forests; • Loss of rare ecological communities and rare plants (includes environmentally significant areas); • Introduction of non-native and invasive plant species; and • Increased fragmentation. There are no wetlands affected by construction of the Nosehill Creek Section.

7.3.1 Residual Effects Assessment

Vegetation Diversity

Land units were used as a measurable parameter for potential changes in vegetation and wetland diversity as a result of construction of the Nosehill Creek Section. The AGCC data used to develop the RAA land unit classification is based on the classification of a satellite image with a 25 m pixels resolution. The size of the pixels and the relative size of some portions of the PDA (e.g. <32 m RoW) does not provide a level of accuracy acceptable to estimate loss of particular land units. In addition the coarseness of the classification relative to the LAA land units, which has been based on a photo interpreted product (AVI), produces a wide variation in results. Therefore, the assessment of project effects to the RAA was not carried forward.

Land Units in the LAA

Project effects in the LAA were assessed by superimposing the PDA on the mapped land units, and calculating the areal loss (see Table 7.3-1). All plant communities identified in the LAA are typical for the region and no rare ecological communities were identified.

There will be no reduction in vegetation diversity in the LAA, as all native vegetation units remain, although some land units are slightly reduced and a majority of the PDA is located on existing disturbed areas.

7-3

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Project effects on vegetation communities in the LAA are negative in direction and site specific in extent. Because the PDA has been located on or adjacent to existing disturbed areas, the magnitude is low. Project effects are considered reversible in the medium term for temporary workspace areas that will be reclaimed immediately following construction and long term for the operational pipeline RoW because shrubby or woody growth will be controlled/removed for the life of the Nosehill Creek Section. Residual project effects on vegetation diversity are judged to be not significant. Prediction confidence is medium.

Table 7.3-1 Project Effects on Land Units in the LAA

Land Units Application Percent Upland Ecosite Phases Baseline Area Case Area Difference change (ha) (ha) (%) d1 Labrador tea/ lodgepole pine-black 41.9 41.9 0.0 0.0 spruce e1 low-bush cranberry/ lodgepole pine 25.8 25.8 0.0 0.0 e2 low-bush cranberry/ aspen 52.6 52.6 0.0 0.0 e3 low-bush cranberry/ aspen-white 185.8 185.7 -0.1 0.0 spruce-lodgepole pine e4 low-bush cranberry/ white spruce 25.3 25.3 0.0 0.0 g1 shrubby meadow 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Upland Subtotal 331.6 331.5 -0.1 0.0 Wetland Classes STNN – wooded swamp 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Wetland Subtotal 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Disturbance Land Units Workspace 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 RoW 0.0 6.5 6.5 0.0 Disturbed Land 8.4 8.1 -0.4 -4.6 Cutblock - shrubby 32.4 32.3 0.0 -0.1 Industrial 49.7 39.9 -9.7 -24.4 Road 7.2 7.2 0.0 0.0 Disturbance Subtotal 56.9 97.7 0.1 41.8 Other Land Units (sand) 4.4 4.4 0.0 0.0 Water 7.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 443.6 443.6 NA NA NOTE: Numbers may not add up to totals because of rounding.

7-4

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Old Seral Stage Forests

As a result of pipeline construction, the amount of old seral stage forest in the LAA will change from a baseline of 241.7 to 241.6 ha following construction, representing a loss of 0.1 ha of old seral stage forest type (Table 7.3-2).

Project residual effects on old seral stage forest are negative in direction, site specific to local in extent, occurs once, and low in magnitude, The operational pipeline RoW will be maintained to control shrubby and woody vegetation and therefore residual project effects on old seral stage forests are long term and partially reversible. Overall, residual project effects on old seral stage forests are judged to be not significant. Predication confidence is medium.

Table 7.3-2 Project Effects on Old Seral Stage Forests in the LAA

Area at Baseline in Area with Project in the Difference in Percent Old Seral Stage Forest Type LAA LAA Area Change (ha) (ha) (ha) (%) Coniferous 16.4 16.4 0 0.0 Deciduous 51.7 51.7 0 0.0 Mixedwood 173.6 173.5 -0.1 <0.1 Total 241.7 241.6 -0.1 <0.1

Rare Plants

Project effects on rare species in the RAA were assessed using historical rare plant data from ACIMS (2010). There are no historical occurrences of rare plants in the RAA.

The probability of a loss of rare plants at the LAA level is ranked nil as the project’s area of disturbance has been reduce through paralleling and utilizing existing linear disturbances, and the incorporation of an HDD through the Athabasc River valley. Therefore project effects on rare plants in the PDA are negative in direction, low magnitude, site specific in extent, occurs once, reversible in the medium to long term, and are judged to be not significant. However, given the limited data, confidence is low because occurrences may be present that have not yet been identified. As the timing of the 2010 vegetation surveys was not optimal to identify rare plant species, an additional rare plant survey is recommended prior to construction to confirm the results of this section. Additional mitigation such as collecting seed or transplanting, and limiting disturbance near any rare plants to minimize any potential adverse residual project effects might be required if rare plants are found as part of those surveys. These mitigation measures are included in the Species of Management Concern Discovery Contingency Plan in the EPP.

Rare Ecological Communities

Project effects on rare ecological communities in the LAA and RAA were assessed using historical data from ACIMS (2010). Probability of a loss of rare ecological communities is nil for this assessment, however, confidence is low given the limited data and it is recommended that additional survey for rare

7-5

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011 ecological communities be conducted prior to construction. Any project effects on rare ecological communities in the PDA are negative, low magnitude and site specific. Because the PDA has been located on or adjacent to existing disturbed areas and involves a directional drill through the Athabasca River valley (ESA #99) potential effects on rare ecological communities is considered low. Additional mitigation such transplanting and limiting disturbance near rare ecological communities to minimize potential adverse residual project effects might be required if rare ecological communities are found during additional surveys. These mitigation measures are included in the Species of Management Concern Discovery Contingency Plan in the EPP. Residual project effects are considered reversible in the medium to long term. Residual project effects on rare ecological communities in the PDA would therefore be considered not significant. Prediction confidence is low.

The Nosehill Creek Section bisects one ESA #99, so native vegetation within this ESA will be slightly reduced in areal extent. However, it will not be further affected by fragmentation since the Nosehill Creek Section is contiguous to the existing RoWs, and will have a horizontal directionally drilled crossing of the Athabasca River.

Potential residual effects from the Nosehill Creek Section on ESA are negative, low magnitude, site specific, short to medium term, reversible and therefore, not significant. Predication confidence is high.

Non-native and Invasive Plant Species

With the implementation of the NGTL Weed Management Plan (see EPP, Appendix N), the project effects resulting from introducing non-native and invasive species in the LAA are predicted to be negative, low in magnitude, short term, site specific, occurs sporadically and reversible. Since it is expected that the Weed Management Plan will be effective, the residual project effects from the introduction of non-native and invasive species are considered not significant. Predication confidence is high.

Fragmentation

The Nosehill Creek Section will not contribute to an increase in fragmentation because it is located adjacent to existing disturbed RoWs and involves an HDD of the Athabasca River valley. It will result in a slight loss in extent of undisturbed vegetation cover; however, it will not further fragment native vegetation or wetlands. Project effects on vegetation and wetland fragmentation in the LAA are negative in direction and site specific to local in extent. Because the PDA has been located on or adjacent to existing disturbed areas and local fragmentation will not be increased, the magnitude is low. Project effects are considered reversible in the medium term for temporary workspace areas that will be reclaimed following construction and long term for the operational pipeline RoW. Residual project effects on vegetation fragmentation in the LAA are considered not significant. Prediction confidence is high.

7.3.2 Wetland Residual Effects Assessment

The proposed Nosehill Creek Section RoW and temporary workspace does not traverse any wetlands and therefore an assessment of project effects on wetlands was not completed.

7-6

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

7.4 Water Quality and Quantity

The Nosehill Creek Section is within the Athabasca River Basin and crosses the Athabasca River and a small tributary to the Athabasca River. Potential issues are related to effects on water quality and quantity as a result of pipeline construction, particularly related to downstream users and effects of changes on water quality and quantity on fish and fish habitat. Both the Athabasca River and the tributary to the Athabasca River will be crossed using an HDD and therefore the potential for project effects on water quality and quantity are minimized. A monitoring program for inadvertent drilling mud releases during the HDD is recommended. For a discussion of project effects on fish and fish habitat, see Section 7.6 of this ESA.

The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize potential effects to water quantity and quality:

• recontour RoW to preconstruction grade, where feasible; • the Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) of the Athabasca River will prevent bank disturbance, and eliminate the need for instream construction activities; • a water quality monitoring program will be in place during the HDD of the Athabasca River; • in the event of an HDD frac-out follow the procedures outlined in the Directional Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan; • in the event that the HDD fails, refer to the Contingency Watercourse Crossing Methods; • follow the conditions of the applicable Codes of Practice and Operational Statements during pipeline construction and hydrostatic testing activities; • stabilize and reclaim all approach slopes immediately following backfill; and • to prevent surface runoff from entering the watercourse, implement erosion control measures.

Adhere to spill prevention measures. Implement Spill Contingency Plan measures in the event of an unplanned release.

7.4.1 Residual Effects Assessment

HDD is generally considered a lower impact crossing method and is typically the method of choice for crossing sensitive watercourses whenever feasible. Nevertheless, potential effects on the water quality can result from HDD through the inadvertent release of drilling mud to surface water. With the use of HDD to cross the watercourse and the application of standard mitigation measures to manage sedimentation, the potential residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section on water quality and quantity are expected to be negative, low magnitude, local, of short duration, occurs once, reversible and therefore judged to be not significant for both construction and operation. Predication confidence is high.

A contingency crossing is proposed for both watercourses if the HDD crossing is unsuccessful. It is discussed in more detail in Appendix C of the ESA.

7-7

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

7.5 Fish and Fish Habitat

7.5.1 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

The spatial boundaries used for assessment of project effects on fish and fish habitat are outlined in Table 5.4-1 above. The temporal boundaries used for the fish and fish habitat assessment were baseline, construction and operation. The primary effects on fish and fish habitat will occur during the construction phase of the Nosehill Creek Section when the pipeline is installed in the watercourses crossed.

7.5.2 Residual Effects Assessment

7.5.2.1 Construction

The proposed crossing of the Athabasca River is by HDD. The proposed HDD of the Athabasca River will also include the unnamed tributary. The potential project effects of concern for fish and fish habitat include:

• Introduction of deleterious substances into water containing fish or flowing into fish-bearing areas; and • Changes in fish habitat and changes in mortality risk for fish.

Introduction of Deleterious Substances

The three main types of deleterious substances that might be released during pipeline construction are sediment, drilling mud, and hydrocarbons. Sediment can be introduced into watercourses when construction activities take place in or near a watercourse. There are a number of pathways for sediment/contaminates to be introduced into watercourses, including:

• clearing and grubbing, which exposes soils to erosion during rain and snowmelt events; • improper stabilization or unsuccessful reclamation that results in bank/slope failure; • sedimentation resulting from erosion on the pipeline RoW during operations; and • equipment operation and maintenance in close proximity to watercourses.

Concern was expressed during the TEK field program regarding sediment exposure in the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River. A TEK community participant stated, “This is a sensitive area, I want to make sure that it [the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River] does not get filled up with sediment. Many animals would rather drink out of that than the Athabasca, less exposed for them.” TEK participants emphasized the unnamed tributary not be disturbed because it appeared to be a good drinking area for wildlife. In addition, a TEK community participant recommended the trees surrounding the unnamed tributary not be disturbed during construction. Another recommendation was to use HDD under both the Athabasca and the unnamed tributary if possible.

Concerns about the introduction of deleterious substances exist at all watercourse crossings. However, since the Athabasca River and the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River will be crossed using HDD

7-8

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011 methods and there will be limited instream work associated with this type of crossing, there is a substantially lower risk to fish and fish habitat. Access to the river will be required to pump water for the HDD drilling operation. The use of equipment in close proximity to fish habitats can be another potential source of contaminants. Hydrocarbons such as oil, fuel, lubricants or hydraulic fluids can enter surface water from operation, maintenance, and refuelling activities if carried out in or near a watercourse. A TEK community participant stated that NGTL would not be disturbing the watercourses if the HDD was used on both the Athabasca River and the unnamed tributary.

HDD is generally considered a lower impact crossing method and is typically the method of choice for crossing sensitive watercourses when feasible. Potential effects from HDD on the aquatic environment can result from inadvertent releases of drilling mud (mainly water and bentonite clay) to surface water. Drilling mud has the potential to be introduced beyond the construction zone through the inadvertent release of drilling mud to the surface through porous or fractured subsurface materials (a frac-out). Drilling mud entering a watercourse has effects similar to sediment in that it will temporarily increase turbidity (reduce visibility) and can potentially affect benthic habitats by smothering benthic invertebrate communities or fish eggs (Alberta Transportation 2001).

Appropriate selection of crossing techniques is the most important mitigation measure. Potential degradation of water quality can be mitigated or even eliminated by implementing standard best management practices for sediment and erosion control and hazardous materials management (CAPP 2005). Recommended best management practices to prevent deleterious substances from entering watercourses in the LAA are:

• Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed, where necessary, following completion of clearing and before any construction activities. These should be inspected and maintained regularly during construction; • The drilling fluid system should be monitored at the HDD site and contingency measures for drilling mud release should be implemented if it is determined that a loss of circulation and potential surface fracture has occurred; • Minimal disturbance zones should be established in riparian areas; • Grading should be delayed on approach slopes to watercourses until immediately before construction of the pipeline crossing. Where this is not practical, appropriate temporary erosion and sediment control structures should be installed immediately on initial disturbance of the vegetative mat and surface materials stripping; • Where poor weather conditions and project activities have the potential to cause increased sedimentation, the construction stage should be modified or suspended until weather conditions abate or effective mitigation procedures have been implemented; • Contingency plans implemented before shutdown should include considering such measures as installing temporary diversion berms on steep slopes, installing silt fencing and changing equipment (i.e., low pressure tire or tracked vehicles); • Fuel and other potentially hazardous materials should not be stored within 100 m of a watercourse;

7-9

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

• Vehicle and mobile construction equipment fuelling should not take place within 100 m of a watercourse unless the fuelling site is contained within a lined berm; and • Once the watercourse crossings are complete, crossing approaches should be graded to stable slopes and reclaimed as quickly as practical to reduce opportunities for erosion. Runoff ditches should be diverted into stable vegetated areas to prevent runoff from entering watercourses.

The characterization of residual project effects was based on the criteria outlined in Section 5 and the effectiveness of mitigation measures described above.

The use of a HDD technique, combined with a sediment monitoring program at the Athabasca River crossing will reduce the risk to both fish and fish habitat at this location. Assuming the HDD technique is successful, residual project effects on fish or fish habitat are expected to be nil, neutral in direction, negligle magnitude, local geographical extent, occurring once in the short term, reversible, and therefore not significant. There is a high level of confidence in residual effects prediction. These effects are anticipated with a high degree of confidence based on the quality and quantity of baseline information, confidence in analytical techniques, experience with similar work and confidence in mitigation success.

A contingency crossing is proposed for both watercourses if the HDD crossing is unsuccessful and discussed in more detail in Appendix C of the ESA.

Changes in Fish Habitat and Mortality Risk for Fish

Alterations to fish habitat are normally limited to trenched crossings (either isolated or open cut), where construction activity takes place in the active channel. Best management practices for erosion and sediment control are typically employed during all phases of instream or near-stream construction and reclamation.

The proposed HDD crossing technique, combined with a sediment monitoring program at the Athabasca River crossing, will reduce the risk to both fish and fish habitat at this location. Assuming the HDD technique is successful no residual project effects on fish or fish habitat are expected.

A contingency crossing is proposed for both watercourses if the HDD crossing is unsuccessful and is discussed in more detail in Appendix C of the ESA.

7.5.2.2 Pipeline Operation

Watercourses are generally not affected during pipeline operation other than for access for routine maintenance along the pipeline. There is the potential for sedimentation at crossings if reclamation measures fail to become established. Some standard mitigation measures are recommended for the operations phase to address this issue including:

• erosion control structures should be monitored and maintained as required until the stability of banks and approach slopes is established;

7-10

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

• all watercourse crossings should be regularly inspected as part of scheduled pipeline monitoring particularly following spring runoff and subsequent to extreme rainfall or flooding events; and • environmental protection measures outlined in DFO Alberta Operational Statements for maintenance activities associated with watercourses should be followed.

It is expected that reclamation measures and recommended mitigation measures will be implemented. Any residual project effects from operation of the Nosehill Creek Section are expected to be negative, low magnitude, site specific to local in extent, occurring sporadically, medium to long term but reversible and therefore will be not significant. Predication confidence is high.

7.5.3 Summary of Residual Effects

HDD is generally considered a lower impact crossing method and is typically the method of choice for crossing sensitive watercourses whenever feasible. Nevertheless, potential effects on the aquatic environment can result from HDD through the inadvertent release of drilling mud to surface water. With the use of HDD to cross the watercourse and the application of standard mitigation measures to manage sedimentation, the potential residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section on fish and fish habitat are expected to be negative, negligible to low magnitude, site specific to local, of short duration, occurring sporadically, reversible and therefore judged to be not significant. Predication confidence is high.

A contingency crossing is proposed for both watercourses if the HDD crossing is unsuccessful and discussed in more detail in Appendix C of the ESA.

7.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

7.6.1 Residual Effects Assessment

The primary focus of the wildlife and wildlife habitat component of the ESA is species of management concern and their habitats. Determination of the wildlife and wildlife habitat interactions associated with the Nosehill Creek Section was based on a review of the current limiting factors and threats to species of management concern that were encountered during the field program, or known to potentially occur within the RAA.

For the purposes of this assessment, the following project-specific effects are addressed in further detail:

• Changes in Habitat Availability - reduced habitat availability (quantity and quality), caused by vegetation and site clearing (including increased edge/linear disturbance), which could result in either direct habitat loss or isolation and fragmentation of habitat patches, and/or by sensory disturbance (resulting in dispersal of individuals); • Changes in Wildlife Movement Patterns - disruption of landscape- and local-scale dispersals and population linkages, caused by movement barriers; and • Changes in Mortality Risk - increased direct and indirect mortality, caused by wildlife-project interactions, vehicle-wildlife collisions (if applicable).

7-11

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

7.6.2 Determination of Significance

The determination of whether a change in the wildlife and wildlife habitat VEC is significant should be guided by an examination of whether project activities would approach or exceed thresholds as defined by laws, policy commitments, recovery strategies and management plans or expert opinion (Lynch- Stewart 2004). However, for all of the species found in the RAA, except the grizzly bear, there is a lack of defined standards or thresholds for defining significance. In all cases, the determination of significance was based solely on expert opinion of the effect of residual effects on the sustainability of wildlife resources in the RAA; as sufficient empirical data was not available.

The only existing regulatory threshold for wildlife and wildlife habitat is the open access density threshold of 0.6 km/km2 in high quality grizzly bear habitat, and 1.2 km/km2 in all remaining grizzly bear range adopted in the Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (AGBRP 2008). The Nosehill Creek Section is found in a secondary grizzly bear zone that has a 1.2 km/km2 open access density threshold. The proposed route alignment parallels an existing linear disturbance for the entire RoW and there are no new roads required that would affect the open access density threshold. Therefore potential effects on the secondary grizzly bear zone were not further considered.

7.6.3 Characterization of Project Residual Effects

7.6.3.1 Habitat Loss and Alteration

Clearing activities will reduce habitat availability. Operation of the pipeline will also require ongoing vegetation management along the operational pipeline RoW to support surveillance, resulting in a long- term maintenance/ removal of early seral stages (forb and shrub stages) until the pipeline is abandoned and the lands along the route are reclaimed. Initial clearing of the PDA will temporarily reduce forage availability for wildlife. Over time, the RoW will have increased forage availability for some species due to the presence of early seral vegetation (e.g., ungulate browse).

An Aboriginal participant recommended not disturbing the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River as it appeared to be a drinking area for animals. As the Athabasca River and the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River will be crossed using the HDD method, disturbance to both watercourses is expected to be limited. An Aboriginal participant also recommended that seeding of the RoW be done with clover rather than vetch as vetch is not native to the area and clover is eaten by the animals.

The majority of the PDA is located along an existing RoW, and use of an HDD crossing of the Athabasca River valley, therefore overall habitat loss and alteration will be minimal (see Section 7.4 for a detailed discussion on effects on Vegetation). The residual effects are expected to be negative, low in magnitude, site specific in extent, occurring once, and reversible in the long term. As a result the residual effects on habitat loss and alteration are anticipated to be not significant (Table 7.15-1). Predication confidence is high.

7-12

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

7.6.3.2 Displacement of Wildlife

Noise arising during construction of the pipeline or site-specific maintenance activities may temporarily displace wildlife in the vicinity of the Nosehill Creek Section. Due to the linear progression of pipeline construction, construction at any given location along the Nosehill Creek Section will be limited to approximately one month and, therefore, is of short term duration. Nonetheless, low-magnitude residual effects from sensory effects (i.e., displacement of wildlife) are expected to occur sub-regionally (within RAA) as a result of some construction activities. With the application of the following recommended mitigation measures, residual effects are expected to be negative, short-term, occurring once, reversible, sub-regional and are predicted to be not significant:

• conduct clearing outside of migratory bird window (May 1 - July 31); • time construction to avoid sensitive periods for wildlife species (breeding); • avoid development of all new season access; • pets, firearms and recreation use of all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles will be prohibited on the RoW during construction; • ensure that noise abatement equipment (e.g., mufflers) on machinery is in good working order to control noise levels. Take reasonable measures to control construction-related noise; and • implement Species of Management Concern Discovery Contingency Plan if species are encountered during construction.

The scheduling of construction activities outside of the migratory bird restricted activity period will substantially minimize the potential to disturb breeding birds. The potential effects associated with the disturbance of migratory bird nests are avoided through timing of construction and therefore, no residual effects are identified. Residual effects prediction confidence is high.

7.6.3.3 Changes to Wildlife Movement Patterns

Wildlife movement patterns vary between species, due to species-specific attributes such as size and life stage, as well as other factors such as time of day and season. Most species will alter their movement to avoid construction areas however some may be attracted during active hours or after hours by their curiosity of construction activities. Residual effects associated with temporary changes to wildlife movement patterns during construction activities are negative, of low magnitude, sub-regional in extent, occurring once, short term in duration, reversible, and was judged to be not significant. Predication confidence is high.

The increased width to the existing RoW from portions of the Nosehill Creek Section outside of the HDD area may present a barrier effect for some smaller wildlife species. Additionally, the RoW will provide an easy travel route for bears and other large wildlife species during operation. Although temporary reductions in forage availability are expected as a result of initial clearing within the PDA, increased forage availability following re-vegetation (e.g., grasses and potential for greater berry productivity at clearing edges) may attract certain wildlife species along the RoW. Overall, changes to wildlife movement

7-13

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011 patterns during operation is continuous, localized, reversible in the long term, and of low magnitude and judged to be not significant.

7.6.3.4 Changes in Mortality Risk

Direct Mortality

The level of mortality that will occur due to pipeline construction activities will depend on the species group and can be mitigated in part by scheduling. Clearing outside the migratory bird breeding season will prevent mortality of nesting birds and satisfy the requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) and Migratory Birds regulations (1994). Birds are most sensitive to changes in habitat during the nesting season; therefore vegetation clearing should be restricted from May 1 through July 31 (Gregoire, pers.comm.) which is outside of the proposed construction period. Temporal mitigations for breeding birds are included in Table 9.1.

Pipeline RoW preparation (clearing, grubbing and grading) could result in mortality for small mammals, amphibians and reptiles that inhabit woody debris, leaf litter and soil, particularly those that are less mobile and/or may be hibernating in the ground if construction activities occur under frozen conditions. Construction of the Nosehill Creek Section is not considered to have the potential for substantial effects on local wildlife populations as a result of direct mortality, and the residual effect will be negative, site specific, of short duration, occurring sporadically, reversible and low magnitude, and are predicted to be not significant. Prediction confidence is moderate.

Indirect Mortality

As the Nosehill Creek Section is paralleling an existing RoW for its entire length, there should be no increase to indirect mortality risk. Although, the existing risk due to predation (e.g., wolves preying on ungulates), hunting, poaching and vehicle mortality will remain. Accordingly, this potential effect was not assessed as part of the residual effects assessment.

The following are recommended mitigation measures for wildlife mortality (direct and indirect):

• multi-passenger vehicles will transport workers to and from the worksite to reduce traffic; • any incidents or collisions with wildlife will be reported to the Environmental Inspector, who will notify local wildlife authorities and the police as appropriate; • clearing vegetation outside the migratory bird breeding season (Apr 1 – Aug 31) will prevent mortality for nesting birds; • in the event that construction activities will occur from May 1 to July 31, a qualified avian biologist will conduct a nest sweep of the area. Any nesting activity noted will be subject to additional mitigation strategies or work in the area will be postponed until the nest is no longer active; • qualified wildlife biologists will conduct raptor nest and sensitive habitat surveys prior to vegetation clearing and construction;

7-14

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

• garbage will be collected daily and disposed of in approved locations; and • Wildlife will not be harassed or fed.

7.6.4 Species at Risk or Species of Special Status and Related Habitat

7.6.4.1 Residual Effects Assessment

The primary focus of the species at risk or species of special status component of the ESA is species of management concern and their habitats. This includes all the species listed in Table 6.6-2 that are listed under SARA, by COSEWIC, the Alberta Wildlife Act, and as Sensitive, May Be at Risk or At Risk in the General Status of Alberta Wild Species (ASRD 2005). Determination of the species at risk and species of special status interactions associated with the Nosehill Creek Section was based on a review of the current limiting factors and threats to listed species of management concern that were encountered during the field program, or known to potentially occur within the RAA.

For the purposes of this assessment, the following project-specific effects were considered:

• Changes in Species at Risk Populations - reduced habitat availability (quantity and quality) and/or increased mortality risk may result in decreased population numbers for species at risk and affect their long-term persistence or viability; • Project Effects on Critical Habitat – potential project effects on critical habitat may be possible if a proposed project location coincides with an area identified as Critical Habitat (or preliminarily identified Critical Habitat) for a listed species by a Recovery Strategy or Action Plan under SARA; and • Project Effects on Residences – project development activities such as vegetation clearing may disturb or destroy residences (e.g., dens, nests) of species at risk and species of special status.

Further details on the potential project effects on species at risk and species of special status can be found in the interactions Table 5.3-1. As there is no known critical habitat or preliminarily identified critical habitat for any of the species at risk potentially found in the RAA, an assessment of the potential project effects on critical habitat was not undertaken.

7.6.4.2 Determination of Significance

The determination of whether a change in the species at risk or species of special status VEC is significant is guided by an examination of whether project activities would contravene thresholds as defined by laws, policy commitments, recovery strategies and management plans or experts (Lynch- Stewart 2004). For wildlife species at risk, self-sustaining population objectives, as defined by recovery or management plans or wildlife experts, provide an important standard for determining significance of effects on wildlife species at risk. According to Lynch-Stewart (2004), who focused specifically on wildlife species at risk, residual effects that will diminish the potential for achieving management objectives such as self-sustaining populations or cause a species to be listed as “at risk” or up-listed should be deemed significant.

7-15

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

For all of the species (except the grizzly bear) potentially found in the RAA, there is a lack of defined standards or thresholds for defining significance. However, legal prohibitions do not provide the only standard for assessing significance. The following list is an example of the types of serious consequences that should be avoided and considered in the determination of adverse effects (from Lynch-Stewart 2004):

• effects that threaten the long-term persistence or viability of wildlife populations, including any effects that will lead to species extinction, extirpation or up-listing to special concern, threatened or endangered status; • effects that diminish the potential for species recovery, such as those effects that are contrary to or inconsistent with the goals, objectives or activities of recovery strategies and action plans; • effects that promote or prolong those threats identified in recovery strategies, action plans and speciesmanagement plans as contributing factors in population decline; and • effects that diminish the capacity of critical habitat to provide for the recovery and survival of wildlife at risk.

These potential consequences were considered when determining significance of project effects. In all cases, the determination of significance was based solely on expert opinion of the assessment team when evaluating residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section on the sustainability of species at risk in the RAA; as sufficient empirical data was not available.

7.6.4.3 Characterization of Project Residual Effects

Changes in Species at Risk Populations

Species at Risk pursuant to Schedule 1 of SARA

There are several species potentially found within the RAA listed on Schedule 1 of SARA, including; common nighthawk (Threatened), olive-sided flycatcher (Threatened), Canada warbler (Threatened), rusty blackbird (Special Concern), northern leopard frog (Special Concern) and western toad (Special Concern). For the Schedule 1 bird species, as construction activities are planned outside of the breeding season (May 1 to July 31), there will be no mortality risk associated with the project as well as no sensory disturbance effects. In addition, while habitat loss due to vegetation clearing is the only measurable project effect, there will be minimal direct loss of habitat due to short length of the RoW (3.5 km) and

7-16

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011 construction width of pipeline RoW. The Nosehill Creek Section parallels existing RoW for its entire length which will result in no direct increase of edge as well.

It is recommended that a contingency plan be developed to manage observations of occurrences of any Schedule 1 species observed during construction. This plan should be developed and vetted with appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., ASRD and Environment Canada) and included in the final version of the EPP used for construction. A draft of this plan has been included with the EPP.

Species of Special Status (Schedule 2 and 3 of SARA)

The only species on Schedule 2 or 3 of SARA potentially occurring within the RAA is short-eared owl (Special Concern). However, there are several species currently listed by COSEWIC but not yet currently added to SARA including horned grebe (Special Concern), peregrine falcon (Special Concern), wolverine (Special Concern) and grizzly bear (Special Concern). As the drill pads are setback from the Athabasca River, any potential effects on nesting habitat of peregrine falcons would be minimal and as such effects should be nil. Project effects on horned grebe and short-eared owl should be nil as there is little to no habitat potential for these species in the PDA as well as construction activities will be outside of their breeding period, During construction activities both wolverine and grizzly bear may be present in the LAA. While there will be minimal habitat loss for all species at risk associated with the Nosehill Creek Section, including wolverine and grizzly bear, mitigation measures associated with minimizing potential indirect effects (i.e., vehicle collisions) should reduce residual effects and as a result have little effect on local populations of these species. Potential residual effects on Species of Special Status were judged to be not significant.

It is recommended that a contingency plan be developed to manage observations of occurrences of Schedule 2 and 3 species during construction. This plan should be developed and vetted with appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., ASRD and Environment Canada) and included in the final version of the EPP used for construction. A draft of this plan has been included with the EPP.

Provincially listed Species at Risk (wildlife)

Overall, there are 44 birds, 8 mammals and 4 herptiles listed provincially that may occur in the RAA. As habitat loss is being minimized by the proposed route alignment (parallel and contiguous with existing linear disturbances) and construction timing is planned to avoid the sensitive timing windows for most listed species, project effects on provincially-listed species should be minimal (low to nil). Potential residual effects on provincially listed species at risk were judged to be not significant.

It is recommended that a contingency plan be developed to manage observations of occurrences of any provincially listed species at risk observed during construction. This plan should be developed and vetted with appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., ASRD and Environment Canada) and included in the final version of the EPP used for construction. A draft of this plan has been included with the EPP.

7-17

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Project Effects on Residences

The project effects on the residences (e.g., nests, dens, etc.) of species at risk and species of special status should be minimal in the PDA. There are no wetlands in the PDA so effects on breeding wetlands for amphibians and birds would be nil. While there is the potential for nests of listed migratory songbirds along the proposed route, as the pipeline route has been aligned to be parallel and contiguous with existing linear disturbances (i.e., pipelines) and as construction is planned outside of the migratory bird breeding window there should be no effects to these nests. This is because most migratory songbirds do not use the same nest locations on an annual basis. During the wildlife habitat assessment, no raptor or owl nests were observed within the PDA. In addition, no potential bear den sites were noted during the reconnaissance. Potential residual effects on residences of species at risk or species of special status is considered negative, low magnitude, short term to medium term, occurring once, site specific to local, reversible and is predicted to be not significant. Prediction confidence is medium.

A wildlife discovery protocol has been developed to manage the discovery of any residences of species at risk or species of special status during construction. This plan should be vetted with appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., ASRD and Environment Canada) and included in the final version of the EPP used for construction.

7.7 Atmospheric Environment

As there are no facility emissions associated with the operation of the Nosehill Creek Section and there are no residences (permanent or seasonal) within close proximity of the Nosehill Creek Section, there are no expected interactions with air quality and human health. There will be some nuisance emissions generated during construction and maintenance activities through the operation of equipment and vehicles travel. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce any potential effects of these activities on air quality and human health:

• ensure construction equipment is in proper working order (serviced and properly tuned); • adhere to the Construction Access and Traffic Management Plan; and • winter construction will minimize concerns with dust from construction traffic. Consequently, potential residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section on air quality or human health are expected to be negative, low magnitude, site specific to local, of short duration, regular, reversible and therefore judged to be not significant. Prediction confidence is high.

There are no sources of facility air emissions associated with the Nosehill Creek Section.

7.8 Acoustic Environment

Although construction and maintenance activities will generate some noise, it is expected to be short term, intermittent, and transient, as it moves along the RoW. The pipeline itself does not generate noise. The construction and maintenance noise is considered small in magnitude. There are no permanent

7-18

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011 residences located within 20 km of the Nosehill Creek Section, which reduces the potential for interaction between the acoustic environment and people. The following standard mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential effects of construction or maintenance activities on the acoustic environment:

• ensure that noise abatement equipment (e.g., mufflers) on equipment and vehicles are in good working order; and • ensure that noise generating activities are restricted to the day time hours whenever possible. Construction related noise is expected to be negative, low magnitude, site specific to local, of short duration, occurring regularly, reversible, and therefore judged to be not significant. Prediction confidence is high. There is no noise generating facilities associated with the Nosehill Creek Section.

7.9 Human Occupancy, Resource and Land Use

Primary land uses occurring in the study area include, oil and gas development, forestry and recreation. As noted earlier, there are no permanent residences within the RAA of the Nosehill Creek Section. The potential direct and indirect effects on resource and land use include:

• Potential overlap of construction activities with other oil and gas activities; • Overlap of construction activities with forestry activities and loss of forestry land; and • Indirect disturbance of recreational activities due to a winter construction schedule.

7.9.1 Pipelines and Oil and Gas Resources

The pipeline intersects multiple lands held under active disposition along its route. In order to reduce overall potential land disturbance, the proposed 3.5 km long route follows existing linear infrastructures for the entirety of its length. The proposed Nosehill Creek Section is contiguous with the following existing pipelines:

• Fairborne pipeline (PLA 041713); • Exxonmobil pipeline (PLA 890071); • Apache pipeline (PLA 051291); and • Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (PLA 800736).

To reduce potential project effects on oil and gas development activities in the area during project development and construction, crossing agreements will be required from existing oil, gas, and road operators to ensure appropriate setbacks and timing of activities will be maintained between other industrial activities and the Nosehill Creek Section.

7-19

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

7.9.2 Forestry

The project is located within FMUs E3 and E6, operated by West Fraser Mills Ltd. The RoW will be cleared prior to construction. Effects to forestry will be limited to the PDA. It is recommended the FMA holder be consulted to coordinate clearing activities prior to construction.

7.9.3 Recreation, Hunting, Fishing and Trapping

The Nosehill Creek Section is located within WMUs 344 and 346 and will be constructed Q3 2011 to Q1 2012, which may temporarily affect hunting and trapping activities in the area. As a safety precaution, no hunting or trapping will be permitted on the RoW during construction.

Access to watercourses with sport fish potential, including the Athabasca River, is not anticipated to be affected by construction activities due to the proposed HDD crossing and the route paralleling existing RoWs.

7.9.4 Mitigation and Effects Management

The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential effects on land and resource use:

Pipelines and Oil and Gas Resources

• use Alberta One Call to identify foreign line locates; • develop crossing agreements with existing oil and gas tenure holders; • use existing access roads and rights-of-way, where possible; and • maintain open lines of communication with stakeholders informing them of the proposed project

Forestry

• communication with the FMA holder should be maintained and the FMA holder should be consulted throughout project development; • co-ordinate with forestry operators active in the construction area; and • co-ordinate with forestry operators to ensure construction does not encroach on permanent sample plots.

Recreation

• given the construction schedule there is a potential interference with recreational activities; • consult with local trappers prior to construction to ensure construction does not result in loss of traps; • notify local guides/ outfitters prior to construction of activities and schedule;

7-20

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

• no hunting on RoW when workers are present; and • install warning signs on all access trails and along the Athabasca River to warn recreational users (e.g. snowmobilers) of pipeline construction activity.

7.9.5 Residual Effects Assessment

After mitigation, the residual effect on oil and gas tenure holders is negative, of low magnitude, site specific, short-term, once, and reversible, and has been deemed not significant for construction. There are no residual effects for operations. As there are no other residual effects after additional mitigation predicted on this VEC, no synergistic effects are anticipated. Prediction confidence is high.

The residual effect on forestry resources is negative, of low magnitude, site specific, long term in duration, will occur once and is irreversible, and is judged to be not significant. Prediction confidence is high.

The residual effect from construction and operation of the Nosehill Creek Section on recreation, hunting, fishing and trapping is expected to be negative, of low magnitude, local in geographic extent, short term in duration, once, and reversible. The residual effect based on this characterization is considered not significant. Prediction confidence is high.

Overall, the effects of the construction and operations phase on land and resource use are negative, of low magnitude, site specific in extent, short term, occurring sporadically, and reversible, and therefore residual effects have been determined to be not significant. Prediction confidence is high.

7.10 Heritage and Paleontological Resources

Heritage resources are protected under the Historical Resources Act of Alberta. Any effects on heritage resource sites must be approved by the Minister of ACCS. Although recommendations for mitigation or Historical Resources Act clearance (or both) for the project are formulated in the HRIA permit reports prepared by the archaeological and palaeontological consultants, requirements are determined by ACCS. The Land Use Planning Section of ACCS issues requirements for mitigation of identified heritage resource sites, and issues Historical Resources Act clearance.

7.10.1 Residual Effects Assessment

Project-specific effects on heritage resources are continually mitigated to the standards set by the government. In this context, after implementation of mitigation measures, as issued by ACCS, any project interactions with heritage or paleontological resources are not significant and there are no residual effects.

The potential for undiscovered heritage resources in the study area is considered low to moderate, and no further work or monitoring is recommended by the archaeological or palaeontological consultants. NGTL will be subject to Section 31 of the Historical Resources Act and “shall forthwith notify the Minister” of any chance discovery of heritage resources during construction. NGTL will be required to provide the NEB with copies of all correspondence from ACCS and comply with any additional requirements that may

7-21

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011 be issued by ACCS. If an archaeological artifact is discovered during construction activities implement the Historical Resources Discovery Protocol.

7.11 Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge

For the components of the ESA addressing TLU and TEK, the underlying issue is the ability of present and future generations to practice traditional activities. These activities are commonly understood to include such activities as hunting, trapping, fishing, and plant harvesting. The ability to sustain these activities depends not only on ecosystem health and a viable environment to support resources used for traditional purposes, but also on the preservation of the knowledge, stories, values, spiritual beliefs and traditions that create a foundation for the practice of these rights.

Project effects can potentially result in changes to more than one aspect of traditional land use and knowledge. For example, removing a culturally important plant collection area may not only affect that specific plant community, the local ecosystem and the ability to harvest those plants, it can also affect the transfer of traditional knowledge (including stories, values, specific skills and language), traditional diet (and thereby individual and community health), wildlife habitat (with related effects on hunting, trapping, fishing and food security), social cohesion, traditional economic systems, and enjoyment of the land, all of which can ultimately affect Aboriginal culture and identity. These complex linkages require the examination of potential impacts to specific sites or areas as well as related social, cultural and economic effects on both individuals and the community as a whole.

For this application, in relation to the NEB Filing Manual and the CEAA (s.2), the specific VEC examined is the current use of lands for traditional purposes. Additional information regarding past use of lands (ancestral sites, trails and landmarks and related stories) and other interests or concerns related to the project is deemed within the scope of the TLU and TEK component. The specific aspects evaluated during these studies are not pre-determined in order to avoid imposing an external categorization or limitation on the potential effects discussed in reference to the Nosehill Creek Section. These aspects are identified by community members during the study and may vary between communities depending on areas of priority.

7.11.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TEK information is presented in applicable biophysical and socio-economic sections of this ESA. Please refer to Section 6.4 for a description of the approach.

7.11.2 Traditional Land Use

In the absence of specific information on current use of lands for traditional purposes, the following assumptions were made for assessment of project effects on current use of lands for traditional purposes.

Traditional use activities can generally be divided into two very broad categories of gathering and cultural/spiritual activities. Gathering activities include but are not limited to hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking, plant collection (medicinal and/or ceremonial). The valued ecosystem components of

7-22

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011 wildlife, vegetation, fisheries and land-use, which support these traditional use activities, can be used as the basis for effects assessment on lands currently used for traditional purposes. The assessment has concluded there are no significant adverse effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat, vegetation and wetland, land-use and fish and fish habitat VEC’s provided recommended mitigation measures are implemented during construction. Any potential residual effects to these VEC’s are predicted to be negative, low magnitude, short term, localized, occurring once, and reversible. As the effects assessment of the VEC’s that support traditional use activities predicted residual effects to be not significant, it is reasonable to conclude that any potential residual effect on current use of lands for traditional purposes would also be not significant. The project follows and is contiguous to an existing linear corridor and will make use of some of the existing linear disturbances which will further limit any potential adverse effects. Prediction confidence is medium.

No effects of operation are anticipated on use of lands for traditional purposes as operation activities are anticipated to be sporadic and very site specific over the life of the project.

Traditional use studies are currently being undertaken by Aboriginal communities. These studies may identify other issues related to potential effects of the project on current use of lands traditional purposes and may identify additional mitigation. It is recommended that NGTL continue to work with Aboriginal communities to resolve any issues related project effects that are deemed by communities to adversely affect their use of the lands for traditional purposes.

Summary TLU reports and requested mitigation will be submitted to the NEB prior to construction and any site specific mitigation, if required, will be incorporated into the EPP.

7.12 Social and Cultural Well-Being

The construction of the Nosehill Creek Section is expected to be the only period when project effects on social and cultural well-being might be noted. Given the lack of nearby residences, effects are expected to be of a short duration (approximately 6 months). The region has hosted numerous other short term fluctuations in industrial activity including forest harvesting, oil and gas exploration, and pipeline construction. Any effects on social and cultural well-being, such as disruption to daily life are expected to be short-term. It is recommended the construction contractor hire locally and subcontract to local businesses with special effort directed at First Nation businesses.

7.12.1 Residual Effects Assessment

The project effects are positive, expected to be of low to moderate magnitude, local to regional in extent, occurring regularly over the construction period, of short duration, and effects are considered reversible. Consequently, effects were judged to be not significant. Prediction confidence is high.

7-23

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

2012, the 426 campground stalls in the Hinton area would be unavailable. Occupancy rates during the shoulder and winter tourist season ranges between 50% and 60% so the increase in demand for accommodation should be welcomed and manageable.

An estimated 64 vehicles per day will travel on the private forestry / oil & gas roads. Buses and crew cabs will be used to keep the traffic volumes down. Private road use agreements will be put into place with the “owners" of these private roads. This volume of traffic on public roads would be insignificant when compared to daily traffic volumes of 8000 + vehicles per day.

7.13.1 Residual Effects Assessment

Although moderate magnitude will likely be experienced for the impact of both the use of accommodation in Hinton and the use of private roads, the duration will be short lived during construction and reversible. The following measures are recommended to mitigate any potential negative effects on infrastructure and local services:

• notify Hinton’s hotel/motel industry well in advance of the need for rooms; • use multi-passenger vehicles to transport workers daily between Hinton and construction sites; • implement the Construction Access and Traffic Management Plan

With the application of the recommended mitigation measures potential residual effects on Infrastructure and services are negative, of moderate magnitude, regional in extent, occurring continuous over the construction period, duration is short term, and effects are reversible, consequently residual effects were judged to be not significant. Prediction confidence is high.

7.14 Employment and Economy

The employment of 150 people on construction represents 10 % of the regional labor force but will be short lived (6 months). Local expenditures are estimated at $1 million and property taxes payable to Yellowhead County are estimated at $42,000 per year. When compared to $45 million of total property taxes collected in 2008, this is relatively insignificant.

7.14.1 Residual Effects Assessment

While the use of local accommodation, use of private roads, and local employment and local expenditures will be moderate in scope, they will all be short lived. Following the application of mitigative measures, all are not significant.

Although longer lasting throughout the life of the operations (50 years), the amount of property tax payable to Yellowhead County each year is not a significant benefit.

The following mitigation measures are recommended to enhance employment and economic opportunities during construction and operation of the project.

• NGTL should ensure the construction contractor maximizes the use of local hires;

7-24

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

• NGTL should ensure the construction contractor maximizes local expenditures; • NGTL should ensure the contractor engages First Nation Communities and Contractor(s) in employment opportunities during construction of the Nosehill Creek Section. • early consultation with local contractors in affected communities regarding business opportunities and procurement practices; • continue to work with First Nations to determine details of their participation in the project; • develop and include guidelines related to local hiring in bid packages, which will be considered when awarding construction contracts; • prepare a database of qualified contractors and businesses, including Aboriginal contractors and businesses that can provide services related to construction and provide these contacts to prime contractors to use during the tendering process; • provide the opportunity for qualified local contractors to participate in the contracting process; and • identify qualified Aboriginal-owned companies and provide information in advance for potential opportunities.

NGTL is committed to a procurement program that actively promotes local opportunity, including Aboriginal businesses

With the application of recommended mitigation measures, residual project effects on the Nosehill Creek Section will be positive, but moderate in the case of employment, and local expenditures will be short duration (approximately 6 months), regional in geographical extent, continuous during construction, and reversible. Project residual effects were judged to be not significant. Prediction confidence is high.

7-25

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

7.15 Summary of Identified Residual Effects

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Physical Environment Construction • Surface erosion • Recontour the construction RoW and Negative Low Site Specific Once Short to Medium Reversible High Not Significant • Wildfire restore preconstruction grades and drainage patterns. • Slope instability • Minimize grading throughout the RoW, to • Severe weather the extent feasible. • Loss of surface organic • Salvage surface organics where grading material/organic layer is required, and backfill separately. • Admixing with subsoils • Avoid mixing snow with spoil during • Erosion (wind/water) backfilling. • Loss of productivity due to • To reduce the potential for trench line unplanned release or spills subsidence, all available spoil will be crowned over the trench line to allow for settlement. • If adverse weather conditions have the potential to impact soils, implement contingency measures or suspend construction until adverse conditions abate. • Implement the Adverse Weather Contingency Plan or Wet/Thawed Soil Contingency Plan, Spill Contingency Plan, and Fire Contingency Plan, as warranted. • Monitor the pipeline RoW on a routine basis following construction. Conduct a Post-Construction Monitoring Program. • Implement the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan where warranted.

7-27

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Vegetation Construction • Loss of vegetation diversity • Follow existing disturbances, where Negative Low Site Specific Once Medium to Long Reversible Medium Not Significant feasible. • Ensure lands with native vegetation are seeded with an appropriate native seed mix or left to naturally regenerate. • Implement the Spill Contingency Plan, as warranted. • Reduction of old seral stage forests • Follow existing disturbances, where Negative Low Site Specific to Once Long Partially Medium Not significant or species of management concern feasible Local Reversible • Allow for natural encroachment of vegetation species that are conducive to establishing a successional process for establishment of old seral stage forests, where appropriate. • Loss of rare ecological communities • Follow existing disturbances, where Negative Low Site specific Once Medium to Long Reversible Low Not significant and rare plants feasible • In the event that a rare plant or rare ecological community is observed during supplementary rare plant, implement the Species Discovery Contingency Plan. • Implement the Spill Contingency Plan, as warranted • Ensure lands with native vegetation are seeded with an appropriate native seed mix or left to naturally regenerate • Limit root grubbing to areas requiring grading • Introduction and/or spread of • Clean equipment prior to arrival at work Negative Low Site Specific Sporadic Short Reversible High Not significant weeds site. • Implement a weed management plan. • Monitor during PCMP and operation for areas of prolific weed growth. • Increased fragmentation • Follow existing disturbances, where Negative Negligible Site specific to Once Short to Medium Reversible High Not Significant feasible local

7-29

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Water Quality and Quantity Construction • Potential change in surface water • Recontour RoW to preconstruction Negative Low Local Once Short Reversible High Not Significant quantity and ground water quantity grade, where feasible. through interruption of flow. • The Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) of • Potential change to surface water the Athabasca River will prevent bank quality and ground water quality disturbance, and eliminate the need for through sedimentation or release of instream construction activities. hydrocarbons. • A water quality monitoring program will be in place during the HDD of the Athabasca River. • In the event of an HDD frac-out follow the procedures outlined in the Directional Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan • In the event that the HDD fails, refer to the Contingency Watercourse Crossing Methods. • Follow the conditions of the applicable Codes of Practice and Operational Statements during pipeline construction and hydrostatic testing activities. • Stabilize and reclaim all approach slopes immediately following backfill. • To prevent surface runoff from entering the watercourse, implement erosion control measures. • Adhere to spill prevention measures. Implement Spill Contingency Plan measures in the event of an unplanned release. Operation • Potential change in surface water • Follow the conditions of the applicable Negative Low Local Once Short Reversible High Not Significant quantity with maintenance Codes of Practice during maintenance activities. activities. • Potential change to surface water • Implement spill contingency plan quality and ground water quality measures in the event of an unplanned through sedimentation or release of release hydrocarbons.

7-31

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Fish and Fish Habitat Construction • Introduction of deleterious • The Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) of Negative Neglible to Site sSecific to Sporadically Short Reversible High Not Significant substances – sediment or the Athabasca River will prevent bank Low Local hydrocarbons. disturbance, and reduces risk of effects • Changes in fish habitat – instream on fish and fish habitat. construction will alter bed and • Follow Code of Practice requirements for banks of watercourse resulting in pipeline crossing. All vehicle crossings loss of productive capacity. will involve driving around. • Changes to mortality risk – isolated • Follow DFO’s Operational Statement for crossings have potential to trap High Pressure Directional Drills fish. • Implement erosion and sediment control measures as required at watercourse crossings. • In the event of an HDD frac-out follow the procedures outlined in the Directional Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan. • In the event that the HDD fails, refer to the Contingency Watercourse Crossing Methods. • Adhere to spill prevention measures. Implement Spill Contingency Plan measures in the event of an unplanned release. Operation • Sedimentation if reclamation • Inspection of watercourse crossing sites Negative Low Site Specific to Sporadically Medium to Long Reversible High Not Significant measures fail to become following spring runoff and subsequent to Local established at crossings. extreme rainfall or flooding events. • Operational activities interact with • Monitor and maintain erosion control surface water structures until stability of banks and approach slopes is established. • Environmental protection measures outlined in DFO Alberta Operational Statements for maintenance activities associated with watercourses should be followed.

7-33

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Construction Changes in Habitat Availability • Pipeline route has been aligned to be Negative Low Site Specific Once Long Reversible High Not Significant • Loss /alteration of habitat parallel and contiguous with existing linear disturbances (pipeline) and • Habitat fragmentation adjacent to all weather access roads. • Blockage of wildlife movement • Time construction to avoid sensitive Reduction in habitat quality due to periods for wildlife species (breeding), spills where feasible. • Leave gaps in spoil and snow windrows to allow wildlife to cross the right-of-way. • Conduct clearing outside of migratory bird window (May 1- July 31). • Implement the Spill Contingency Plan in the event of a spill. Displacement of Wildlife • Avoid development of new all season Negative Low Sub-regional Once Short Reversible High Not Significant • Sensory disturbance access. • Ensure that noise abatement equipment (e.g., mufflers) on machinery is in good working order to control noise levels. Take reasonable measures to control construction-related noise. • Pets, firearms and recreation use of all- terrain vehicles or snowmobiles will be prohibited on the RoW during construction. • Implement Species of Management Concern Discovery Contingency Plan if species are encountered during construction. Changes to Wildlife Movement • Gaps in strung pipeline at existing game Negative Low Sub-regional Once Short Reversible High Not Significant Patterns trail locations will allow wildlife to cross • Attraction of animals to project site the RoW. because of garbage • Clean-up and restoration of the proposed Sensory disturbance construction RoW will be done as soon as practical. • Implement Species of Management Concern Discovery Contingency Plan if species are encountered during construction

7-35

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat (cont'd) Construction (cont’d) Direct Mortality • Multi-passenger vehicles will transport Negative Low Site Specific Sporadic Short Reversible Moderate Not Significant workers to and from the worksite to reduce traffic. • Any incidents or collisions with wildlife will be reported to the Environmental Inspector, who will notify local wildlife authorities and the police as appropriate. • Clearing vegetation outside the migratory bird breeding season (May 1 – July 31) will prevent mortality for nesting birds. • In areas where construction is to occur between May 1 and July 31, a qualified avian biologist will conduct a nest sweep of the area. Any nesting activity noted will be subject to additional mitigation strategies or work in the area will be postponed until the nest is no longer active. • Garbage will be collected daily and disposed of in approved locations. • Wildlife will not be harassed or fed. Operation Habitat Alteration or Loss • Complete reclamation of the proposed Negative Low Site Specific Continuous Long Reversible High Not Significant construction RoW expeditiously Changes to Wildlife Movement • Complete reclamation of the proposed Neutral Low Local Continuous Long Reversible High Not Significant Patterns construction RoW expeditiously. Species at Risk or Species of Special Status and Related Habitat Construction Changes in Species at Risk • Refer to mitigation measures described Negative Low Local Once Short Reversible Medium Not Significant Populations above for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Mortality (direct and indirect) from increased vehicle activity • Sensory disturbance • Blockage of wildlife movement Attraction of animals to project site because of garbage

Project Effects on Residences • Implement Species of Management Negative Low Site Specific Once Short to Medium Reversible Medium Not Significant • Habitat fragmentation Concern (Species at Risk and Species of Special Status) Contingency Plan if • Loss /alteration of habitat species are encountered during Reduction in habitat quality due to construction spills Operation Changes in Species at Risk • Refer to mitigation measures described Negative Low Local Continuous Long Reversible High Not Significant Populations above for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

7-37

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Atmospheric Environment/ Air Quality Construction • Short term increase in air emissions • To minimize air emissions ensure Negative Low Site Specific to Regular Short Reversible High Not Significant including GHG equipment used for construction is well Local • Construction equipment will burn maintained relatively small amounts of • Adhere to the Construction Access and hydrocarbon fuel (such as gasoline Traffic Management Plan. and diesel), The quantity of criteria • Winter construction will minimize air contaminants (CACs) such as concerns with dust from construction sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen traffic oxides (NOX), fine particulate

matter (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide (CO) emitted are small in magnitude and are judged to be not substantial. In addition, construction activities are expected to be short- term and transient in nature. Acoustic Environment Construction • Short term noise emissions from • Ensure noise abatement equipment (e.g. Negative Low Site Specific to Regularly Short Reversible High Not Significant construction equipment mufflers) are in good working order to Local control noise levels Human Occupancy and Resource Use Construction • Interference with other oil and gas • Consult with adjacent pipeline operators Negative Low Site specific Once Short Reversible High Not Significant activities to obtain agreement for pipeline crossings and temporary workspace. • Adhere to the Construction Access and Traffic Management Plan. • Complete clean-up as soon as practical following construction.

• Loss of merchantable timber during • Consult with FMA holder prior to Negative Low Site Specific Once Long Irreversibe High Not Significant clearing construction • Permanent loss of lands for forest production.

7-39

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Human Occupancy and Resource Use (cont’d) Construction (cont’d) • Interruption of recreational use of • The HDD will ensure that impacts on Negative Low Local Once Short Reversible High Not Significant the area including fishing, hunting recreation in the Athabasca River Valley and trapping are minimized. • Notify trappers prior to clearing and construction activities. • Notify local guides/ outfitters prior to construction of activities and schedule; • No hunting on RoW when workers are present. Operation • Interference with other oil and gas • Consult with adjacent pipeline operators Negative Low Site Specific Intermittent Short Reversible High Not Significant activities to obtain agreement for pipeline • Interruption of recreational use of crossings. the area including fishing, hunting • Notify trappers prior to extensive and trapping maintenance activities • Consult with FMA holder prior to extensive maintenance activities Heritage Resources Construction • Loss of historical and • Ensure Historical Resources Act Negative Low Site specific Once Short-term NA High Not Significant palaeontological features clearance has been issued by ACCS • Loss of site contents or site context prior to construction. • Follow all recommended mitigations as specified by ACCS. • Implement Historical Resources discovery protocol if archaeological artifact is discovered during site preparation or mainline construction. Traditional Land Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge Construction • Potential disruption of hunting • In the event that any site-specific Negative Low Local Once Short-term Reversible Medium Not Significant fishing, trapping and other concerns arise during the ongoing gathering activities engagement process, NGTL will attempt • Potential to affect traditional use to resolve these issues using company mandated protocol and policies. • Provide Aboriginal Communities with proposed construction schedule and pipeline route maps, and install signs notifying groups of construction activities in the vicinity. • Where issues arise develop mitigation strategies based on input from affected communities. • Field programs for wildlife, archaeology, vegetation, and aquatics include FN participation, see specific sections of ESA for mitigation to address identified TK issues.

7-41

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Social and Cultural Well-Being Construction • Short term employment and • Encourage construction contractor(s) to Positive Low to Regional Regularly Short Reversible High Not Significant business opportunities during hire locally and subcontract to local Moderate pipeline construction. businesses with special effort directed at First Nation businesses. No construction camp required. Operation • No planned increase in operating N/A and maintenance employment. Infrastructure and Services Construction • Increase in traffic • Use multi-passenger vehicles to Negative Moderate Regional Continuous Short Reversible High Not Significant • Increased demand for transport crews to and from the worksite, accommodation in Hinton where possible. • Implement the Construction Access and Traffic Management Plan. • Collect construction debris and other waste material and dispose of at an approved facility daily. • Adhere to the Waste Management Plan. • Adhere to all safety standards during construction.

7-43

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Employment and Economy Construction • The Project will employ 150 people • Contractor will be encouraged to Positive Moderate Regional Continuous Short Reversible High Not Significant on construction and offer maximize local hires and purchase of businesses opportunities such as supplies and contract services locally. clearing, reclamation, fuel supply, • First Nation(s) will be approached to bid etc. on contracts. Provincial and federal income taxes • Early consultation with local contractors and federal G.S.T. payments will be in affected communities regarding generated. business opportunities and procurement practices • Continue to work with First Nations to determine details of their participation in the project • Develop and include guidelines related to local hiring in bid packages, which will be considered when awarding construction contracts • Prepare a database of qualified contractors and businesses, including Aboriginal contractors and businesses that can provide services related to construction and provide these contacts to prime contractors to use during the tendering process • Provide the opportunity for qualified local contractors to participate in the contracting process • Identify qualified Aboriginal-owned companies and provide information in advance for potential opportunities Operation Property taxes payable annually to NA Positive Moderate Site-specific Continuous Permanent Reversible High Not Significant the M.D. of Greenview Human Health NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Effects of the Environment on the Project Construction • Delay in construction • Implement Severe Weather Contingency Negative Low Site Specific Sporadic Short Reversible High Not Significant • Safety of construction workers Plan • Implement the Fire Contingency Plan.

7-45

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 7.0: Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment February 2011

Table 7.15-1 Residual Effects Ratings (cont'd)

Geographic Prediction Activity Potential Effect Mitigation Measures Direction Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Confidence Significance Accidents and Malfunctions

Construction • Spill or accidental release of • Equipment should be in good working Negative Low Site Specific Sporadic Short Reversible High Not Significant hydrocarbon during construction order and regularly maintained. and operations • a release of natural gas as result of • Crews should be properly trained in the pipeline rupture handling of wastes. • Fire • All contractors and employees of NGTL Damage to other facilities during should be trained and be required to pipeline construction comply with applicable regulations for the containment, handling and disposal of wastes and potentially hazardous materials. • All staff should be aware of their responsibilities in the case of a spill. • Should liquid wastes enter the environment, localized contamination may be required and either the contaminated soil is removed or is treated on-site. • Implement Spill Contingency Plan in the event of an accidental release of hydrocarbon. • Locate and clearly mark foreign line crossing before any ground disturbance during construction and operations. • Use Alberta One-call. • Implement Fire Contingency Plan. • In event of a rupture follow NGTL’s emergency response plan. Others NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

7-47

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 8.0: Effects of the Environment on the Project February 2011

8.0 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT

As defined by s.2(1) of CEAA, assessment of project effects requires consideration of any changes to the project as a result of the environment. Potential effects of the environment on the project are typically considered during engineering design and are used to identify required mitigation measures.

Potential effects of the environment were identified for all phases of the Nosehill Creek Section. Several climactic factors could affect the Nosehill Creek Section during the construction and operation phases, ranging from delays in construction to damage to facilities. Effects could result from:

• severe weather, such as heavy precipitation, snow, thunderstorms; and • wildfires.

The potential for these effects and the nature of such effects are discussed below. Where warranted, mitigation measures are provided.

8.1 Effects Considered During Planning

The project team has benefited from NGTL’s wealth of experience in constructing and operating its extensive network of pipelines and has applied this experience to the planning of the Nosehill Creek Section. Environmental constraints were considered during route selection through the application of criteria which included aligning the Nosehill Creek Section adjacent to the existing NGTL Grande Prairie Mainline.

8.1.1 Severe Weather

Severe weather is an important consideration in pipeline construction and operation. Severe weather in this area of Alberta generally consists of heavy precipitation, winds, thunderstorms, and wild fires.

It is critical in addressing adverse weather to maintain effective communication between the contractor, the appropriate regulatory representatives and the stakeholders. Where severe weather conditions and activities have the potential to affect the Nosehill Creek Section or biophysical resources, NGTL’s Environmental Inspector should take appropriate action to prevent or mitigate any potential adverse effects. Such action may include suspension or modification of specific activities until weather conditions abate or effective mitigation procedures have been implemented.

8.1.1.1 Heavy Precipitation

Incoming low-pressure disturbances can produce extreme rain and wind. However, most of these storms are short-lived. In fall and winter, these mid latitude disturbances track across the study area approximately every two days.

8-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 8.0: Effects of the Environment on the Project February 2011

When Pacific air streams interact with Arctic air masses over the region, extreme snowfalls can result. Extreme daily snowfalls have been recorded in the project area.

Extreme or persistent precipitation could result in the delay of construction if wet soil conditions result. During operation, heavy precipitation could potentially create ground conditions subject to rutting from the operation of construction equipment. Extreme rain and runoff from rain or snow melt can cause soil erosion in the period following construction and before site reclamation activities, particularly on disturbed soils.

Measures to mitigate the potential effects of precipitation and runoff include installing adequate drainage measures and temporary and permanent erosion control measures (see EPP). Any effects caused by heavy precipitation are expected to be mitigable, short term, low-moderate magnitude and no residual effects will remain.

8.1.1.2 Blizzards

Blizzards are a large part of the regional climate and are characterized by intense cold, strong winds, snow, and reduced visibility. The occurrence of blizzards varies greatly over the province. The southerly portions of the province can get up to approximately two blizzard episodes per year (Nav Canada 2001). These storms are most likely to occur during the month of February (Environment Canada 1990). Construction could be halted in the event of a blizzard, or if safety issues become a concern. During operation, blizzards could affect the response time for emergency vehicles to deal with accidental releases, and could slow or delay maintenance activities. However, emergency response planning activities typically take such weather events into account.

Any effects caused by blizzards on the Nosehill Creek Section are expected to be mitigable and any effects will be short term, low magnitude, reversible and therefore not significant.

8.1.2 Wildfires

The construction of the Nosehill Creek Section is scheduled from Q3 2011 to Q2 2012. Given the construction schedule the risk of wildlfires affecting construction is low, and NGTL has a Fire Contingency Plan in the unlikely event of a wildfire. Consequently the risk of wildfires affecting project construction was not considered further in the assessment. Prior to initiating any construction or maintenance activities, it is recommended that NGTL contact the appropriate provincial authorities (i.e., ASRD) to discuss the timing of any prescribed burns in the area and determine if there are any conflicts or safety concerns. The probability that prescribed burns may have an effect on the construction or operation of the Nosehill Creek Section is considered very unlikely and was not considered further in the assessment.

During the operation phase, forest fires are unlikely to adversely affect the buried pipeline; however, they could affect aboveground facilities. NGTL has emergency response procedures in place for its entire operations and in the event of a wildfire, NGTL would implement its emergency response plan. Therefore, the potential effects of wildfire on the operations of the Grande Prairie Mainline Nosehill Section are judged to be not significant.

8-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 9.0: Summary of Identified Residual Effects February 2011

9.0 SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS

Table 9-1 provides a summary of identified residual effects, proposed mitigation measures, and a determination of significance for all VEC’s and VSCs that have been determined to have an interaction with the Nosehill Creek Section. Overall, potential residual effects of the Nosehill Creek Section on the identified VECs and VSCs were determined to be not significant.

9-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 9.0: Summary of Identified Residual Effects February 2011

Table 9.0-1 Summary of Nosehill Creek Section Project Effects and Significance

Significance Standard Determination Interaction Description of Potential mitigation will be Residual Effects after Mitigation (Residual/ Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Effects implemented (Y/N) Specify the standard mitigation (Y/N) Cumulative) Physical Environment Y • Clearing the right-of-way • Surface erosion Y • Recontour the construction right-of-way and restore preconstruction Y Not Significant • Right-of-way preparation • Slope instability grades and drainage patterns. • Potential for surface erosion (stripping, grading, • Severe weather causing • Minimize grading throughout the right-of-way, to the extent feasible. prior to re-establishment of trenching) rutting and surface erosion • If adverse weather conditions have the potential to impact soils, vegetation. • Backfilling and strippings • Loss of soil and soil implement contingency measures or suspend construction until adverse • Potential for minor amounts of replacement productivity conditions abate. compaction. • Right-of-way and drill pad • Implement the Adverse Weather Contingency Plan or Wet/Thawed Soil • Potential for areas of fill preparation (stripping, Contingency Plan, and Fire Contingency Plan, as warranted. instability following winter grading, trenching) • Salvage surface organics where grading is required, and backfill construction separately. • Potential for mixing of strippings • Avoid mixing snow with spoil during backfilling. and subsoil due to salvage activities • Implement the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan where warranted. • Potential for areas of trench To reduce the potential for trench line subsidence, all available spoil will • subsidence be crowned over the trench line to allow for settlement. • Potential reduction in soil Monitor the pipeline right-of-way on a routine basis following construction. • productivity due to accidental • Conduct a Post-Construction Monitoring Program. spill or release Soils N • See Physical Environment • See Physical Environment N NA NA NA Vegetation Y • Clearing vegetation along • Changes in vegetation Y • Follow existing disturbances, where feasible. Y Not significant the right-of-way diversity • Ensure lands with native vegetation are seeded with an appropriate native • Loss or alteration of native • Stripping salvage, storage • Reduction of old seral stage seed mix or left to naturally regenerate. vegetation and replacement forests • Implement the Spill Contingency Plan, as warranted. • Loss of vegetation important to • Revegetation following • Loss of rare ecological • Reclamation of pipeline RoW immediately following construction. wildlife construction communities and rare plants • Allow for natural encroachment of vegetation species that are conducive • Introduction and/or spread of • Accidental spills • Reduction of extent of to establishing a successional process for establishment of old serial weeds environmentally significant stage forests, where appropriate. • Loss or disturbance to area • Clean equipment prior to arrival at work site. vegetation due to unplanned • Introduction and spread of releases or spills • Limit root grubbing to areas requiring grading non-native and invasive species • In the event that a rare plant or rare ecological community is observed during supplementary rare plant, implement the Species Discovery • Increase fragmentation Contingency Plan. • Implement a weed management plan. • HDD through the Athabasca River valley reduces potential adverse effects on ESA #99 • Implement the Directional Drill Mud Release Contingency Plan, as warranted. • Monitor during PCMP and operation for areas of prolific weed growth.

9-3

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 9.0: Summary of Identified Residual Effects February 2011

Table 9.0-1 Summary of Nosehill Creek Section Project Effects and Significance (cont’d)

Significance Standard Determination Interaction Description of Potential mitigation will be Residual Effects after Mitigation (Residual/ Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Effects implemented (Y/N) Specify the standard mitigation (Y/N) Cumulative) Wetlands N • There are no wetlands N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A affected by the Nosehill Creek Section Fish and Fish Habitat Y • Installation of pipeline • Introduction of deleterious Y • The Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) of the Athabasca River will prevent Y Not significant watercourse crossings substances – sediment or bank disturbance, and reduces risk of effects on fish and fish habitat. • Loss of fish habitat as a result • Installation and removal of hydrocarbons. • Follow Code of Practice requirements for pipeline crossing. All vehicle of a hydrocarbon spill vehicle watercourse • Changes in fish habitat – crossings will involve driving around. • Loss of fish habitat as a result crossings instream construction will • Follow DFO’s Operational Statement for High Pressure Directional Drills of a release of drilling mud alter bed and banks of • Hydrostatic testing • Implement erosion and sediment control measures as required at • Loss of fish habitat as a result watercourse resulting in loss • HDD drilling mud release watercourse crossings. of improper discharge of of productive capacity. • Operation and maintenance • In the event of an HDD frac-out follow the procedures outlined in the hydrostatic test water • Changes to mortality risk – activities interact with Directional Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan. • Fish mortality as a result of isolated crossings have surface water hydrocarbon spill potential to trap fish. • In the event that the HDD fails, refer to the Contingency Watercourse • Accidental spills Crossing Methods. • Adhere to spill prevention measures. Implement Spill Contingency Plan measures in the event of an unplanned release. Water Quality and Y • Site preparation, grading, • Potential change in surface Y • Recontour RoW to preconstruction grade, where feasible. Y Not significant Quantity trenching, backfilling water quantity and ground • The Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) of the Athabasca River will prevent • Change in surface water • Installation of erosion control water quantity through bank disturbance, and eliminate the need for instream construction drainage due to ditch measures interruption of flow. activities. subsidence or crown • Watercourse crossings • Potential change to surface • A water quality monitoring program will be in place during the HDD of the • Potential for sedimentation of water quality and ground • Accidental spills Athabasca River. watercourse crossings prior to water quality through • In the event of an HDD frac-out follow the procedures outlined in the re-establishment of vegetation • Hydrostatic testing sedimentation or release of Directional Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan • Potential for contamination as a hydrocarbons. • In the event that the HDD fails, refer to the Contingency Watercourse result of a hydrocarbon spill Crossing Methods. • Reduction of water quality as a • Follow the conditions of the applicable Codes of Practice and Operational result of release of drilling mud Statements during pipeline construction and hydrostatic testing activities. • Stabilize and reclaim all approach slopes immediately following backfill. • To prevent surface runoff from entering the watercourse, implement erosion control measures. • Adhere to spill prevention measures. Implement Spill Contingency Plan measures in the event of an unplanned release.

9-5

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 9.0: Summary of Identified Residual Effects February 2011

Table 9.0-1 Summary of Nosehill Creek Section Project Effects and Significance (cont’d)

Standard Significance mitigation will be Determination Interaction Description of Potential implemented Residual Effects after Mitigation (Residual/ Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Effects (Y/N) Specify the standard mitigation (Y/N) Cumulative) Wildlife and Wildlife Y • Clearing of vegetation Changes in Habitat Availability Y • Pipeline route has been aligned to be parallel and contiguous with Y Not significant Habitat • Grading, trenching, pipe • Loss /alteration of habitat existing linear disturbances (pipeline) and adjacent to all weather access • Alteration or loss of potential roads. The HDD of the Athabasca River reduces effects on key wildlife stringing • Habitat fragmentation habitat and biodiversity zone. • Increased vehicle travel and • Blockage of wildlife • Temporary changes to wildlife • Time construction to avoid sensitive periods for wildlife species activity in the Project area movement movement during construction (breeding), where feasible. • General increase of activity • Reduction in habitat quality • Potential for direct mortality • Leave gaps in spoil and snow windrows to allow wildlife to cross the RoW. in the area due to spills • Sensory disturbance • Install gaps in strung pipeline at existing game trail locations to allow • Accidental spills Displacement of Wildlife • Potential for wildlife mortality or wildlife to cross the RoW. • Sensory disturbance injury due to spills or product • Wildlife will not be harassed or fed. Changes to Wildlife Movement release Patterns • Ensure that noise abatement equipment (e.g., mufflers) on machinery is in good working order to control noise levels. Take reasonable measures • Attraction of animals to to control construction-related noise. project site because of garbage • Utilize multi-passenger vehicles for transport of crews to and from the worksite, to the extent practical. • Sensory disturbance • Implement the Spill Contingency Plan in the event of a spill. Changes in mortality risk (direct and indirect mortality) • Avoid development of new all season access. • Pets, firearms and recreation use of all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles will be prohibited on the RoW during construction. • Implement Species of Management Concern Discovery Contingency Plan if species are encountered during construction • Any incidents or collisions with wildlife will be reported to the Environmental Inspector, who will notify local wildlife authorities and the police as appropriate. • Conduct clearing outside of migratory bird window (May 1- July 31). • In the event that construction activites are scheduled between May 1 to July 31, a qualified avian biologist will conduct a nest sweep of the area. Any nesting activity noted will be subject to additional mitigation strategies or work in the area will be postponed until the nest is no longer active. • Garbage will be collected daily and disposed of in approved locations.

9-7

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 9.0: Summary of Identified Residual Effects February 2011

Table 9.0-1 Summary of Nosehill Creek Section Project Effects and Significance (cont’d)

Standard Significance mitigation will be Determination Interaction implemented Residual Effects after Mitigation (Residual/ Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Description of Potential Effects (Y/N) Specify the standard mitigation (Y/N) Cumulative) Species at Risk pursuant Y • Clearing of vegetation Changes in Species at Risk Y • Refer to mitigation measures described above for Wildlife and Y Not significant to Schedule 1 of SARA • Grading, trenching, pipe Populations Wildlife Habitat • Loss of potential habitat for stringing • Mortality (direct and indirect) from • Refer to the Species of Management Concern Discovery Schedule 1 species • Increased vehicle travel and increased vehicle activity Contingency Plan • Direct mortality activity in the Project area • Sensory disturbance • Sensory disturbance • General increase of activity in • Blockage of wildlife movement the area • Attraction of animals to project site • Accidental spills because of garbage Project Effects on Residences • Habitat fragmentation • Loss /alteration of habitat Reduction in habitat quality due to spills Species of Special Status • Loss of habitat and/or alteration of Y Not significant (Schedule 2 and 3 of habitat for grizzly bear and wolverine • Loss of potential habitat for SARA and local) • Sensory disturbance grizzly bear and wolverine • Blockage of wildlife movement Provincially listed • Mortality (direct and indirect) from Y Not significant Species increased vehicle activity • Potential loss of habitat for at Risk (wildlife) • Sensory disturbance provincially listed species • Blockage of wildlife movement • Attraction of animals to project site because of garbage • Habitat fragmentation • Loss /alteration of habitat • Reduction in habitat quality due to spills Air Quality Y • No sources of facility • Short term increase in air emissions Y • To minimize air emissions ensure equipment used for Y Not significant emissions associated with including GHG’s construction is well maintained. • Localized temporary increased Project operation • Construction equipment or vehicles • Adhere to the Construction Access and Traffic Management emissions (including dust) • Potential for small amounts of will burn relatively small amounts of Plan. during construction and nuisance air emissions hydrocarbon fuel (such as gasoline operation (including exhaust fumes and and diesel), The quantity of criteria dust) to be emitted during air contaminants (CACs) such as operation maintenance sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen activities oxides (NOX), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide (CO) emitted are small and construction activities are short-term and transient in nature.

9-9

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 9.0: Summary of Identified Residual Effects February 2011

Table 9.0-1 Summary of Nosehill Creek Section Project Effects and Significance (cont’d)

Standard Significance mitigation will be Determination Interaction implemented Residual Effects after Mitigation (Residual / Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Description of Potential Effects (Y/N) Specify the standard mitigation (Y/N) Cumulative) Acoustic Environment Y • Use of construction equipment • Short term noise emissions from Y • Ensure noise abatement equipment (e.g. mufflers) on Y Not significant and vehicles during right-of- construction equipment construction equipment are in good working order to control noise • Localized temporary Increase in way preparation and levels noise during construction and construction during site specific operational • Use of equipment and vehicles maintenance activities during operation Human Occupancy and Y • Potential to interact with oil and • Interference with other oil and gas Y • Consult with adjacent pipeline operators to obtain agreement for Y Not significant Resource Use gas and other pipeline activities pipeline crossings and temporary workspace. • Potential to interact with other operations • Loss of merchantable timber during • Adhere to the Construction Access and Traffic Management Plan. oil and gas operations • Potential to affect recreational clearing • Complete clean-up as soon as practical following construction. • Potential to affect recreational and forestry activities • Permanent loss of lands for forest • Consult with FMA holder prior to construction users during construction • General construction activities production. • The HDD will ensure that impacts on recreation in the Athabasca • RoW preparation (clearing, • Interruption of recreational use of River Valley are minimized. stripping, grading, trenching) the area including fishing, hunting • Notify trappers prior to clearing and construction activities. • Use of equipment and vehicles and trapping during operation Heritage Resources Y • Clearing of vegetation • Loss of historical and Y • No sites identified that would be affected by the Nosehill Creek Y Not significant/ • RoW preparation (stripping, palaeontological features Section. • Loss of site content and context grading, trenching) • Loss of site contents or site context • Ensure Historical Resources Act clearance has been issued by ACCS • Follow all recommended mitigations as specified by ACCS • Implement Historical Resources discovery protocol if archaeological artifact is discovered during site preparation or mainline construction Traditional Land Use and Y • Clearing of vegetation • Potential disruption of hunting Y • HDD of Athabasca River Valley avoids many issues raised by Y Not significant Traditional Environmental • RoW preparation (stripping, fishing, trapping and other gathering TEK participants. • Potential disruption of hunting Knowledge grading, trenching) activities • In the event that any site-specific concerns arise during the fishing, trapping and other • Potential to affect traditional land ongoing engagement process, NGTL will attempt to resolve these gathering activities use issue using company mandated protocol and policies. • Potential to affect traditional use • Provide Aboriginal Communities with proposed construction schedule and pipeline route maps, and install signs notifying groups of construction activities in the vicinity. • Where issues arise develop mitigation strategies based on input from affected communities. • Field programs for wildlife, archaeology, vegetation, and aquatics included First Nation participation; see specific sections of ESA for mitigation to address identified traditional knowledge issues.

9-11

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 9.0: Summary of Identified Residual Effects February 2011

Table 9.0-1 Summary of Nosehill Creek Section Project Effects and Significance (cont’d)

Standard Significance mitigation will be Determination Interaction implemented Residual Effects after Mitigation (Residual / Element (Y/N) Description of Interaction(s) Description of Potential Effects (Y/N) Specify the standard mitigation (Y/N) Cumulative) Socio and Cultural Well- Y • Project construction activity • Change in community Y • Encourage construction contractor(s) to hire locally and Y Not significant Being and equipment traffic may demographics as a result of subcontract to local businesses including First Nation businesses. • Short term employment and disturb local community potential increased workforce business opportunities on • Change in community cohesion as a pipeline construction result of potential increased work force Infrastructure & Services Y • Potential pressure on existing • Temporary increase in traffic Y • Use multi-passenger vehicles to transport crews to and from the Y Not significant infrastructure and local • Increased demand for worksite, where possible. • Increase in traffic services through increased accommodation in Hinton • Implement the Construction Access and Traffic Management • Increased demand for work force necessary for Plan. accommodation in Hinton construction of the Nosehill • Collect construction debris and other waste material and dispose Creek Section. • Temporary increase in waste of at an approved facility daily. flow to regional landfill sites • Adhere to the Waste Management Plan. • Potential reduced capacity of • Adhere to all safety standards during construction. emergency services. Employment and Y • Increase in short term • The project will provide short term Y • Contractor will be encouraged to maximize local hires and Y Not significant Economy construction related benefits to construction related benefits to the purchase supplies and contract services locally. • Business opportunities such as the local and regional local and regional economy via • First Nation(s) will be approached to bid on contracts. clearing, reclamation, fuel economy via employment, employment, supplies, and • NGTL is committed to a procurement program that actively supply, etc. supplies, and contracts. contracts. Long term benefits in the promotes local opportunity, including Aboriginal businesses • Provincial and federal income • Long term benefits in the form form of property taxation to the • Contractor will be encouraged to maximize local hires and taxes and federal G.S.T. of property taxation to the hosting municipality purchase of supplies and contract services locally. payments will be generated. hosting municipality • First Nation(s) will be approached to bid on contracts. • Early consultation with local contractors in affected communities regarding business opportunities and procurement practices. • Continue to work with First Nations to determine details of their participation in the project. • Develop and include guidelines related to local hiring in bid packages, which will be considered when awarding construction contracts. • Prepare a database of qualified contractors and businesses, including Aboriginal contractors and businesses that can provide services related to construction and provide these contacts to prime contractors to use during the tendering process. • Provide the opportunity for qualified local contractors to participate in the contracting process. • Identify qualified Aboriginal-owned companies and provide information in advance for potential opportunities. Human Health N • No sources of emissions that • None N/A N/A N N/A could affect human health have been identified • See Air Quality for discussions on construction and operation emissions

9-13

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 9.0: Summary of Identified Residual Effects February 2011

Table 9.0-1 Summary of Nosehill Creek Section Project Effects and Significance (cont’d)

9-15

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 10.0: Cumulative Effects Assessment February 2011

10.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Cumulative effects assessment for all VEC’s or VSC’s was not completed as there are no known or reasonably foreseeable projects that overlap the Nosehill Creek Section spatially or temporarily.

10-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 11.0: Accidents and Malfunctions February 2011

11.0 ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

In addition to assessing project-specific effects, s. 16.1(a) of CEAA requires that every screening consider the effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the Nosehill Creek Section. The following are project related accidents and malfunctions that may occur during the construction and operation phases of the Nosehill Creek Section:

• equipment failure and accidental spill of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel) during construction, and operation • pipeline failure during operation resulting in an accidental release of natural gas

The operation and maintenance of equipment during the construction phase of the Nosehill Creek Section will result in the presence of hazardous liquids onsite. Materials that are likely to be found on construction sites include: fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel and, propane); lubricants (e.g., engine oil, transmission or drive train oil, hydraulic oil, gear oil, lubricating grease); coolants (e.g., ethylene glycol, propylene glycol); methanol; paints; and solvents. Liquid wastes pose the greatest threat to the environment due to their ability to flow uncontrolled and to seep into porous material if not properly contained at all times. Some liquid wastes such as lubricating oil, methanol and antifreeze contain components that are toxic to plants and wildlife. In addition, many of these materials are readily flammable or explosive. Antifreeze (ethylene glycol) is toxic and has a sweet smell that may attract wildlife.

To reduce the risk of an accidental release, accident or malfunction the following mitigation measures are recommended:

• equipment should be in good working order and regularly maintained; • crews should be properly trained in the handling of wastes; • all contractors and employees of NGTL should be trained and be required to comply with applicable regulations for the containment, handling and disposal of wastes and potentially hazardous materials; • all staff should be aware of their responsibilities in the case of a spill; • should liquid wastes enter the environment, localized contamination may be required and either the contaminated soil is removed or is treated on-site; • implement the Spill Contingency Plan in the event of an accidental release of hydrocarbon; • locate and clearly mark foreign line crossings before any ground disturbance during construction and operation; • use Alberta One Call; • implement the Fire Contingency Plan; and • in the event of a rupture, follow NGTL’s emergency response plan.

11-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 11.0: Accidents and Malfunctions February 2011

Mitigations to address the potential for accidental spills during construction are outlined in Section 12, EPP. These minimum requirements will apply to contractors, and will ensure any potential effects are mitigated.

The pipeline will be controlled from an OCC located in Calgary, Alberta. The OCC is staffed 24 hours per day, and utilizes a comprehensive SCADA System to continuously monitor and control pipeline operations.

11-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 12.0: Follow-up and Monitoring February 2011

12.0 FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING

12.1 Introduction

Section 14(c) of CEAA requires the environmental assessment process include the design and implementation of a follow up program. A follow-up program consists of a program to:

• verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment of a project • determine the effectiveness of any measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the project

The following sections outline the follow-up and monitoring recommendations for the Nosehill Creek Section. There are operation follow up and monitoring recommendations, as the sites will remain disturbed until decommissioning. Follow-up and monitoring, therefore, is limited to post-construction monitoring. The Nosehill Creek Section will follow NGTL’s Post Construction Monitoring Program, which ensures compliance with specific reclamation performance expectations and conditions, as well as addresses the requirements of a follow-up program under CEAA.

The objectives of post-construction monitoring are to:

• assess the success of mitigation measures implemented during construction; • document opportunities for procedural learning’s and improvement; and • compare the predicted effects (including cumulative impacts) and mitigation measures with the actual documented impacts.

12.2 Monitoring and Follow-up Process

Post construction monitoring of the Nosehill Creek Section will be based on the principle that success of land reclamation is measured against adjacent representative site conditions while taking into consideration the status of reclamation at the time of the assessment. Preliminary work will entail a review of relevant planning, construction and environmental reports as well as any other documentation of potential issues encountered during the construction and reclamation phases of the Nosehill Creek Section.

The primary land use in the study area is forestry. Any reclamation should be compatible with surrounding land use. If applicable, it is recommended that a report be prepared on the status of reclamation and filed with the NEB on January of the following year. The process should be repeated for a minimum of two years until satisfactory reclamation is achieved. Should a significant issue arise however, the cycle should be extended to three years or more.

12-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 13.0: Environmental Compliance Plan February 2011

13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PLAN

TransCanada’s Health, Safety and Environment (HS&E) Commitment Statement applies to all phases of NGTL's work. NGTL is committed to the implementation of the spirit and intent of the policy in regards to the Nosehill Creek Section. NGTL representatives and contractors are required to comply with the policy as a condition of their employment and the policy applies to all aspects of the proposed Nosehill Creek Section.

13.1 Environmental Protection Plan

The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) documents all the environmental protection measures used to avoid or reduce potential impacts during construction and operation of the Nosehill Creek Section. The EPP is written in construction specification format. The EPP provides project related environmental mitigation measures and commitments to be addressed during the detailed engineering design phase, through to the construction and operation phases of the Nosehill Creek Section.

The EPP should be updated to incorporate the results of the approval process, and ongoing consultation before construction.

This EPP is based on:

• the current NGTL application to the NEB for an order pursuant to s. 58 of the NEB Act (Section 58 Application); • TransCanada’s Health, Safety and Environment Commitment; • TransCanada’s Environmental Management System; • routine mitigation measures developed and applied by TransCanada; • Industry Best Management Practices; • Subject to regulatory approval, pipeline construction activities will occur between Q3 2011 and Q2 2012 to meet the planned in-service date of April 1, 2012. Cleanup and post-construction reclamation of disturbed portions of the RoW will be conducted as soon as weather and ground conditions allow following construction; and • This EPP for construction has been prepared to address non frozen and frozen ground conditions.

The complete EPP follows in Appendix D.

13.2 Environmental Orientation

NGTL will conduct an environmental orientation with key contractor supervisory personnel and NGTL’s Pipeline Inspector at a meeting prior to construction. All key construction and inspection staff will be briefed on NGTL’s expectations, key environmental issues and corresponding mitigative measures.

13-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Section 13.0: Environmental Compliance Plan February 2011

13.3 Inspection

Construction activities will be closely monitored and documented by qualified NGTL inspectors (construction and environmental) to ensure compliance with this ESA, as well as all permit/approval conditions, environmental laws and guidelines, and other environmental commitments.

13.4 Contingency Planning

NGTL has developed a number of contingency plans that are included in the Nosehill Creek Section EPP. These plans include:

• Directional Drill Mud Release Contingency Plan; • Horizontal Directional Drill Monitoring Plan; • Spill contingency plan; • Contaminated soils contingency plan; • Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; • Hydrovac Cutting Disposal; • Waste Management Plan; • Construction Access Plan; • Weed Management Plan; • Adverse Weather Contingency Plan; and • Species of Management Concern Discovery Contingency Plan.

13-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

APPENDIX A Vegetation

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

A.1 Plant Species Identified during Reconnaissance Surveys in 2010

Table A-1 Plant Species Identified During Reconnaissance Surveys in 2010

Scientific Name Common Name Form Vascular Abies balsamea (L.) Mill balsam fir Tree Actaea rubra (Ait.) Willd. red and white baneberry Forb Alnus crispa (Ait.)Pursh green alder Shrub Alnus tenuifolia Nutt. river alder Shrub Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt. Saskatoon berry Shrub Aralia nudicaulis L. wild sarsaparilla Forb Arnica cordifolia Hook. heart-leaved arnica Forb Aster ciliolatus Lindl. Lindley's aster Forb Aster conspicuus Lindl. showy aster Forb Aster sp. L. aster species Forb Astragalus cicer L. cicer milk vetch Forb Betula papyrifera Marsh. white birch Tree Betula pumila L. dwarf birch Shrub Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv. bluejoint reed-grass Graminoid Cornus canadensis L. bunchberry Forb Cornus stolonifera Michx. red-osier dogwood Shrub Delphinium glaucum S. Wats tall larkspur Forb Epilobium angustifolium L. common fireweed Forb Equisetum arvense L. common horsetail Forb Equisetum pratense Ehrh. meadow horsetail Forb Equisetum scirpoides Michx. dwarf scouring-rush Forb Equisetum sylvaticum L. woodland horsetail Forb Fragaria virginiana Duchesne wild strawberry Forb Geocaulon lividum (Richards.) Fern. northern bastard toadflax Forb Gymnocarpium dryopteris (L.) Newm oak fern Forb Heracleum lanatum Michx. cow parsnip Forb Juniperus communis L. ground juniper Shrub Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch tamarack Tree Lathyrus ochroleucus Hook. cream-colored vetchling Forb Ledum groenlandicum Oeder common Labrador tea Shrub Linnaea borealis L. twinflower Shrub Lonicera involucrata Richards. bracted honeysuckle, black twin berry Shrub Lycopodium annotinum L. stiff club-moss Forb

A-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-1 Plant Species Identified During Reconnaissance Surveys in 2010 (cont’d)

Scientific Name Common Name Form Vascular (cont’d) Maianthemum canadense Desf. wild lily-of-the-valley Forb Mertensia paniculata (Ait.) G. Don tall lungwort, bluebell Forb Mitella nuda L. bishop's-cap Forb Petasites palmatus (Ait.) A. Gray palmate-leaved coltsfoot Forb Phalaris arundinacea L. reed canary grass Graminoid Picea glauca (Moench) Voss white spruce Tree Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P. black spruce Tree Pinus contorta Loudon lodgepole pine Tree Populus balsamifera L. balsam poplar Tree Populus tremuloides Michx. aspen Tree Pyrola asarifolia Michx. common pink wintergreen Forb Ribes oxyacanthoides L. northern gooseberry Shrub Ribes sp. L. currant species Shrub Rosa acicularis Lindl. prickly rose Shrub Rubus idaeus L. wild red raspberry Shrub Rubus pubescens Raf. dewberry, dwarf raspberry Forb Salix sp. L. willow species Shrub Shepherdia canadensis (L.) Nutt Canada buffaloberry Shrub Symphoricarpos albus (L.) Blake snowberry Shrub Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. bog cranberry Shrub Viburnum edule (Michx.) Raf. low-bush cranberry Shrub Vicia americana Muhl. ex Willd. wild vetch, American vetch Forb Viola sp. L. violet species Forb Bryophytes Hylocomium splendens (Hedw.) B.S.G. stair-step moss Moss Peltigera malacea (Ach.) Funck lichen Lichen Peltigera sp. Lichen Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt. Schreber's moss Moss Ptilium crista-castrensis (Hedw.) De Not. knight's plume moss Moss Sphagnum capillifolium (Ehrh.) Hedw. acute-leaved peat moss Moss Sphagnum fuscum (Schimp.) Klinggr rusty peat moss Moss Sphagnum sp. L. peat moss species Moss Usnea sp. Dill. ex Adans. old man's beard species Lichen

A-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-2 Central Mixedwood Rare Plants

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Anastrophyllum helleranum liverwort S2 N? G5 Barbilophozia attenuata liverwort S1 N? G5 Barbilophozia kunzeana liverwort S2 N? G5 Blasia pusilla liverwort S1 N? G5 Calypogeia suecica liverwort S1 N? G5 Cephalozia bicuspidata liverwort S1 N? G5 Cephalozia loitlesbergeri S1 NNR G5 Cephaloziella hampeana liverwort S1 N? G5 Chiloscyphus pallescens liverwort S1 N? G5 Chiloscyphus polyanthos liverwort S1 N? G5 Conocephalum conicum liverwort S2 N? G5 Gymnocolea inflata liverwort S1 N? G5 Lophozia guttulata liverwort S2 N? G4G5 Lophozia heterocolpos liverwort S2 N? G5 Lophozia incisa liverwort S2 N? G5 Lophozia laxa liverwort S1 N? G4 Lophozia longidens liverwort S1 N? G5 Lophozia obtusa liverwort S1 N? G4G5 Lophozia rutheana liverwort S1 N? G4? Mannia pilosa liverwort S1 N? G4? Pellia endiviifolia liverwort S2 N? G5 Riccardia latifrons liverwort S2 N? G4G5 Riccardia multifida liverwort S2S3 N? G5 Riccardia palmata liverwort S1 N? G5 Riccia fluitans liverwort S2 N? G5 Scapania apiculata liverwort S1 N? G5? Scapania cuspiduligera liverwort S2 N? G5 Scapania glaucocephala liverwort S2 N? G4G5 Scapania paludicola liverwort S2 N? G5 Scapania paludosa liverwort S2 N? G5 Tritomaria scitula liverwort S2S3 N? G4 Aloina brevirostris short-beaked rigid screw moss S2 N? G3G5 Aloina rigida aloe-like rigid screw moss S2 N? G3G5 Amblyodon dealbatus S2 N? G3G5 Anomodon minor S1 N? G5 Aongstroemia longipes S2 N? G3G5

A-3

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-2 Central Mixedwood Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Blindia acuta sharp-pointed weissia S2 N? G5 Brachythecium reflexum S2 N? G4G5 Brachythecium rutabulum S2? N? G5 Bryobrittonia longipes S2 N3 G3 Bryum algovicum S2 N? G4G5 Bryum cyclophyllum S2 N? G4G5 Bryum pallens S2 N? G4G5 Bryum uliginosum S2 N? G3G5 Buxbaumia aphylla bug on a stick S2 N? G4G5 Callicladium haldanianum S1 NNR G5 Campylium radicale S2 N? G3G5 Conardia compacta S2 N? G3G5 Dicranum spadiceum cushion moss S2 N? G5? Dicranum tauricum broken-leaf moss S1S2 N? G4 Drepanocladus crassicostatus brown moss S2 N? G3G5 Drepanocladus sendtneri brown moss S1 N? G5? Entodon concinnus S2 N? G4G5 Entodon schleicheri S1 N? G3G5 Fontinalis antipyretica S1 N? G5 Funaria americana cord moss S1 N? G3? Hygroamblystegium noterophilum SU N? G4 Hygroamblystegium tenax S2 N? G5 Hypnum callichroum S1 N? G5? Hypnum pallescens S2 N? G5 Leptodictyum humile S1 N? G5 Leskeella nervosa S2 N? G5 Limprichtia cossonii SU N? GU Meesia longiseta S1 N? G4? Mnium ambiguum S2 N? G5 Myurella tenerrima S2 N? G3G4 Neckera pennata S2S3 N? G5 Physcomitrium hookeri bladder-cap moss S1 N? G2G4 Plagiomnium rostratum S1 N? G5 Pohlia atropurpurea S1 N? G4G5 Pohlia bulbifera S1 N? G4G5 Polytrichum longisetum slender hairy-cap S1 N? G5

A-4

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-2 Central Mixedwood Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Pseudobryum cinclidioides S2 N? G5 Pseudoleskeella sibirica S2 N? G5? Racomitrium microcarpon S1? N? GNRQ Rhizomnium magnifolium S2 N? G4G5 Rhodobryum ontariense S2 N? G5 Schistidium agassizii elf bloom moss S1 N? G3G5 Seligeria calcarea chalk brittle moss S1 N? G4? Sphagnum balticum peat moss S1 N? G2G4 Sphagnum compactum neat bog moss S2 N? G5 Sphagnum contortum twisted bog moss S2 N? G5 Sphagnum fallax peat moss S2 N? G5 Sphagnum fimbriatum fringed bog moss S2 N? G5 Sphagnum lindbergii Lindberg's bog moss S2 N? G5? Sphagnum platyphyllum S1 N? G5 Splachnum ampullaceum flagon-fruited splachnum S2 N? G5 Splachnum luteum yellow collar moss S3 N? G3 Splachnum rubrum red collar moss S3 N? G3 Splachnum sphaericum globe-fruited splachnum S2 N? G3G5 Splachnum vasculosum large-fruited splachnum S2 N? G3G5 Tayloria serrata slender splachnum S2 N? G4 Thuidium philibertii S1S2 N? G5 Warnstorfia pseudostraminea brown moss S1 N? G3 Warnstorfia tundrae brown moss S2 N? GU Weissia controversa green-cushioned weissia S2 N? G5 Zygodon viridissimus S1 N? G5 Arctoparmelia centrifuga ring lichen S2 N? G3G5 Arthonia patellulata comma lichen S3? N? G5 Bacidia bagliettoana S2 N? G5 Baeomyces rufus S2 N? G5? Biatora vernalis S2 N? G5? Bird colony bird colony SNR Bryoria nadvornikiana old man's beard S2 N? GNR Bryoria simplicior old man's beard S2S3 N? G3G5 Bryoria trichodes old man's beard SU N? G3G5 Calicium trabinellum S2 N? G3G4 Cladina portentosa reindeer lichen S1 N? GNR

A-5

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-2 Central Mixedwood Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Cladonia bacilliformis S2S3 N? G4G5 Cladonia bellidiflora S2S3 N? G5 Cladonia cyanipes S2 N? GNR Cladonia macrophylla S2 N? GNR Cladonia ramulosa S1 N? G5? Cladonia rei S2 N? G3G5 Cladonia squamosa S2 N? G5 Cladonia stricta SU N? GNR Cladonia umbricola S1 N? G3G5 Cyphelium tigillare soot lichen S2 N? G5 Dermatocarpon moulinsii stippleback S2 N? GNR Flavopunctelia soredica S2 N? G3G5 Heterodermia speciosa S2 N? G5? Hypocenomyce friesii S2 N? G3G5 Imshaugia placorodia S2 N? G3G5 Lecania dubitans S2 N? G4? Lecanora cateilea S2 N? GNR Lepraria incana S2 N? GNR Melanelia fuliginosa S1 N? G5 Melanelia infumata S2S3 N? GNR Melanelia multispora many-spored camoflage lichen S2? N? G5? Melanelia olivacea spotted camouflage lichen S1 N? G3G5 Melanelia panniformis shingled camouflage lichen S1 N? G4G5 Mycobilimbia sabuletorum S2 N? G4G5 Mycoblastus affinis S2 N? G3G5 Mycocalicium subtile S2 N? G3G4 Nephroma bellum S2 N? G3G5 Pannaria conoplea SNR N? G3G4 Peltigera collina S1 N? G3G4 Peltigera evansiana S2S3 N? G4 Peltigera horizontalis S1S2 N? G5 Peltigera polydactyla alternating dog-lichen S1S2 N? G5? Phaeophyscia adiastola S1 N? G4? Phaeophyscia nigricans S2 N? G4 Physcia dimidiata S1 N? G5? Physcia tenella S2 N? G4

A-6

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-2 Central Mixedwood Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Physconia enteroxantha S1? N? G3G5 Placynthiella uliginosa S2 N? G5 Ramalina calicaris S1? N? GNR Ramalina dilacerata punctured ramalina S2 N? G3G5 Ramalina farinacea dotted ramalina S2S3 N? G3G5 Ramalina intermedia rock ramalina S1 N? G4G5 Ramalina obtusata hooded ramalina S2 N? G5? Ramalina roesleri frayed ramalina S2S3 N? G3G5 Ramalina sinensis fan ramalina SU NR G4G5 Solorina spongiosa S2 N? G3G5 Stereocaulon condensatum S1 N? G4 Umbilicaria muehlenbergii plated rock tripe S2 N? G5 Xanthoria fulva S1 N? G5 Agrostis exarata spike redtop S2 N? G5 Anemone quinquefolia wood anemone S1 N? G5 Arabidopsis salsuginea mouse-ear cress S1 N? G4G5 Arctagrostis arundinacea polar grass S2S3 N? G5T5 Aster umbellatus flat-topped white aster S2 N? G5 Aster x maccallae S1S2 N? GNA Astragalus bodinii Bodin's milk vetch S1 N? G4 Blysmus rufus Red Bulrush S1 N? G5 Botrychium crenulatum S1 N1N3 G3 Botrychium lanceolatum lance-leaved grape fern S2 N? G5 Botrychium oneidense blunt-lobe grape-fern S1 G4Q Botrychium pinnatum S3 N? G4? Campanula aparinoides marsh bellflower S1 N? G5 Carex adusta browned sedge S1 N? G5 Carex arcta narrow sedge S1 N? G5 Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge S2 N? G4 Carex hystericina porcupine sedge S1 N? G5 Carex lacustris lakeshore sedge S2 N? G5 Carex oligosperma few-fruited sedge S3? N? G5? Carex pedunculata stalked sedge S1 N? G5 Carex scoparia broom sedge S1 N? G5 Carex umbellata umbellate sedge S2 N? G5 Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge S2 N? G5

A-7

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-2 Central Mixedwood Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Chenopodium leptophyllum narrow-leaved goosefoot SU N4 G5 Chrysosplenium iowense golden saxifrage S3? N3 G3? Cypripedium acaule stemless lady's-slipper S3 N? G5 Cystopteris montana mountain bladder fern S2 N? G5 Danthonia spicata poverty oat grass S2 N? G5 Diphasiastrum sitchense ground-fir S2 N? G5 Dryopteris filix-mas male fern S1 N4N5 G5 Elatine triandra waterwort S1 N? G5 Eleocharis elliptica Slender Spikerush S2? NNR G5 Elodea bifoliata two-leaved waterweed S2 N2 G4G5 Epilobium halleanum willowherb S1 N2? G5 Epilobium lactiflorum willowherb S2 N? G5 Eupatorium maculatum spotted Joe-pye weed S1S2 N5 G5 Gentianopsis detonsa ssp. raupii northern fringed gentian S1 N? G3G5T3T5 Geranium carolinianum Carolina wild geranium S1 N? G5 Hedyotis longifolia long-leaved bluets S2 N? G4G5 Hypericum majus large Canada St. John's-wort S2 N? G5 Juncus brevicaudatus short-tail rush S2 N5 G5 Juncus nevadensis Nevada rush S1 N? G5 Lactuca biennis tall blue lettuce S2 N? G5 Liparis loeselii Loesel's twayblade S1 NNR G5 Luzula acuminata wood-rush S1 N? G5 Luzula rufescens reddish wood-rush S1 N? G5 Malaxis paludosa bog adder's-mouth S1 N3 G4 Mimulus guttatus yellow monkeyflower S2S3? N5 G5 Monotropa hypopithys pinesap S2 N? G5 Muhlenbergia racemosa marsh muhly S2 N4N5 G5 Najas flexilis slender naiad S2 N5 G5 Nymphaea leibergii pygmy water-lily S1S2 N5 G5 Nymphaea tetragona white water-lily S1 N5 G5 Pellaea glabella smooth cliff brake S2 N4N5 G5 Pellaea glabella ssp. simplex S2 N? G5T4? Phegopteris connectilis northern beech fern S2 N? G5 Plantago maritima sea-side plantain S1 N? G5 Polygala paucifolia fringed milkwort S1 N? G5 Potamogeton foliosus leafy pondweed S2 N? G5

A-8

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-2 Central Mixedwood Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Potamogeton robbinsii Robbins' pondweed S1 N? G5 Potamogeton strictifolius linear-leaved pondweed S2 N? G5 Potentilla multifida branched cinquefoil S1 N? G5 Rhynchospora capillacea slender beak-rush S1 N? G4 Sagittaria latifolia broad-leaved arrowhead S2 N? G5 Salix sitchensis Sitka willow S1 N? G5 Sisyrinchium septentrionale pale blue-eyed grass S3 N3N4 G3G4 Sparganium hyperboreum northern bur-reed S1 N? G5 Spartina pectinata prairie cord grass S1 N? G5 Spergularia salina salt-marsh sand spurry S2S3 N5? G5 Sphenopholis obtusata prairie wedge grass S2 N? G5 Spiranthes lacera northern slender ladies'-tresses S1 N? G5 Stellaria crispa wavy-leaved chickweed S2 N? G5 Streptopus roseus rose mandarin S1 N? G5 Trichophorum clintonii Clinton's bulrush S1 N? G4 Viola pallens Macloskey's violet S2S3 N? G5T5 Wolffia columbiana watermeal S2 N? G5

A-9

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-3 Lower Foothills Rare Plants

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Anastrophyllum helleranum liverwort S2 N? G5 Athalamia hyalina liverwort S2 N? G5 Blasia pusilla liverwort S1 N? G5 Chiloscyphus pallescens liverwort S1 N? G5 Chiloscyphus polyanthos liverwort S1 N? G5 Conocephalum conicum liverwort S2 N? G5 Lophozia badensis liverwort S1 N? G5? Lophozia heterocolpos liverwort S2 N? G5 Mannia pilosa liverwort S1 N? G4? Moerckia hibernica liverwort S1S2 N? G4? Pellia endiviifolia liverwort S2 N? G5 Pellia epiphylla liverwort S1 N? G5 Pellia neesiana liverwort S2 N? G5 Riccardia latifrons liverwort S2 N? G4G5 Riccardia palmata liverwort S1 N? G5 Ricciocarpos natans liverwort S2 N? G5 Scapania glaucocephala liverwort S2 N? G4G5 Scapania paludicola liverwort S2 N? G5 Tritomaria scitula liverwort S2S3 N? G4 Mosses Aloina rigida aloe-like rigid screw moss S2 N? G3G5 Amblyodon dealbatus S2 N? G3G5 Aongstroemia longipes S2 N? G3G5 Atrichum selwynii S2 N4 G4 Aulacomnium androgynum S2 N? G5 Barbula coreensis S1 N? G3G5 Blindia acuta sharp-pointed weissia S2 N? G5 Brachythecium rutabulum S2? N? G5 Bryum algovicum S2 N? G4G5 Bryum muehlenbeckii S1S2 N? G4G5 Bryum pallens S2 N? G4G5 Bryum purpurascens S1 N? G3G4 Bryum uliginosum S2 N? G3G5 Campylium radicale S2 N? G3G5 Dicranella crispa curl-leaved fork moss S2 N? G3G5 Dicranella heteromalla silky fork moss S1 N? G5?

A-10

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-3 Lower Foothills Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Mosses (cont’d) Dicranella subulata awl-leaved fork moss S2 N? G5? Dicranum spadiceum cushion moss S2 N? G5? Dicranum tauricum broken-leaf moss S1S2 N? G4 Didymodon rigidulus rigid screw moss S2 N? G5 Fissidens adianthoides maidenhair moss S2 N? G5 Fontinalis dalecarlica S1 N? G3G5 Fontinalis missourica S1 N? G4G5 Grimmia montana sun grimmia S2 N? G5? Hygroamblystegium tenax S2 N? G5 Hygrohypnum molle S1S2 N? G4G5 Hygrohypnum ochraceum S2 N? G5 Hypnum pallescens S2 N? G5 Leptodictyum humile S1 N? G5 Neckera pennata S2S3 N? G5 Orthotrichum affine SU N? G3G5 Pogonatum dentatum hair-like pogonatum S2 N? G3G5 Pohlia bulbifera S1 N? G4G5 Schistostega pennata luminous moss S1S2 N? G3G4 Seligeria donniana Donian beardless moss S2 N? G4G5 Sphagnum fallax peat moss S2 N? G5 Splachnum ampullaceum flagon-fruited splachnum S2 N? G5 Splachnum luteum yellow collar moss S3 N? G3 Splachnum rubrum red collar moss S3 N? G3 Splachnum sphaericum globe-fruited splachnum S2 N? G3G5 Tayloria serrata slender splachnum S2 N? G4 Warnstorfia tundrae brown moss S2 N? GU Bryobrittonia longipes S2 N3 G3 Rhizomnium magnifolium S2 N? G4G5 Lichens Arthonia patellulata comma lichen S3? N? G5 Bacidia bagliettoana S2 N? G5 Baeomyces rufus S2 N? G5? Biatora turgidula S2 N? GNR Bird colony bird colony SNR Bryoria simplicior old man's beard S2S3 N? G3G5

A-11

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-3 Lower Foothills Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Lichens (cont’d) Calicium salicinum S1 N? G5 Cladonia bacilliformis S2S3 N? G4G5 Cladonia bellidiflora S2S3 N? G5 Cladonia cyanipes S2 N? GNR Cladonia metacorallifera S2 N? GNR Cladonia squamosa S2 N? G5 Cladonia umbricola S1 N? G3G5 Collema nigrescens blistered jelly lichen S1 N? G5? Collema subflaccidum S2 N? G5? Cyphelium tigillare soot lichen S2 N? G5 Heterodermia speciosa S2 N? G5? Hypocenomyce friesii S2 N? G3G5 Lecania dubitans S2 N? G4? Lecanora cateilea S2 N? GNR Leptogium lichenoides S2S3 N? G5 Melanelia multispora many-spored camoflage lichen S2? N? G5? Mycobilimbia sabuletorum S2 N? G4G5 Mycoblastus sanguinarius S2 N? G4G5 Mycocalicium subtile S2 N? G3G4 Nephroma bellum S2 N? G3G5 Peltigera evansiana S2S3 N? G4 Peltigera horizontalis S1S2 N? G5 Peltigera polydactyla alternating dog-lichen S1S2 N? G5? Physcia biziana S1S2 N? G5 Physcia tenella S2 N? G4 Physconia perisidiosa S1 N? G3G5 Placynthiella uliginosa S2 N? G5 Ramalina dilacerata punctured ramalina S2 N? G3G5 Ramalina farinacea dotted ramalina S2S3 N? G3G5 Ramalina intermedia rock ramalina S1 N? G4G5 Ramalina obtusata hooded ramalina S2 N? G5? Ramalina roesleri frayed ramalina S2S3 N? G3G5 Ramalina sinensis fan ramalina SU NR G4G5 Rinodina albertana S2 N? GNR Rinodina exigua S1 N? GNR

A-12

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-3 Lower Foothills Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Lichens (cont’d) Rinodina metaboliza S2 N? GNR Solorina spongiosa S2 N? G3G5 Usnea ceratina old man's beard S1 N? G4G5 Usnea scabiosa SU N? GNR Vascular Plants Agrostis exarata spike redtop S2 N? G5 Anemone quinquefolia wood anemone S1 N? G5 Botrychium crenulatum S1 N1N3 G3 Botrychium pinnatum S3 N? G4? Calamagrostis lapponica Lapland reed grass S1 N? G5 Carex adusta browned sedge S1 N? G5 Carex arcta narrow sedge S1 N? G5 Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge S2 N? G4 Carex incurviformis var. incurviformis seaside sedge S2 N? G4G5T4T 5 Carex lacustris lakeshore sedge S2 N? G5 Carex podocarpa alpine sedge S2 N? G4G5 Carex umbellata umbellate sedge S2 N? G5 Chrysosplenium iowense golden saxifrage S3? N3 G3? Cystopteris montana mountain bladder fern S2 N? G5 Deschampsia elongata slender hair grass S1 N? G5 Eleocharis elliptica Slender Spikerush S2? NNR G5 Glyceria elata tufted tall manna grass S2 N? G4G5 Juncus stygius var. americanus marsh rush S2 N? G5T5 Lactuca biennis tall blue lettuce S2 N? G5 Listera convallarioides broad-lipped twayblade S2 N? G5 Luzula acuminata wood-rush S1 N? G5 Luzula rufescens reddish wood-rush S1 N? G5 Mimulus guttatus yellow monkeyflower S2S3? N5 G5 Monotropa hypopithys pinesap S2 N? G5 Oxytropis campestris var. davisii S2? N3 G5T3 Phegopteris connectilis northern beech fern S2 N? G5 Potamogeton obtusifolius blunt-leaved pondweed S2 N? G5 Primula egaliksensis primrose S2 N? G4 Sagittaria latifolia broad-leaved arrowhead S2 N? G5

A-13

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-3 Lower Foothills Rare Plants (cont’d)

Provincial National Global Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Rank Vascular Plants (cont’d) Salix raupii Raup's willow S1 N2 G2 Sphenopholis obtusata prairie wedge grass S2 N? G5 Stellaria crispa wavy-leaved chickweed S2 N? G5 Streptopus roseus rose mandarin S1 N? G5 Trichophorum clintonii Clinton's bulrush S1 N? G4 Viola pallens Macloskey's violet S2S3 N? G5T5

A.2 Lower Foothills Natural Subregion

Ecosite a: Grassland

These sites are found on southerly, steep, rapidly drained, exposed slopes. A grassland ecosite is the edaphic climax site due to moisture limitations. These slopes are generally dominated by bearberry. a1: Shrubby grassland

This ecosite phase is found in subxeric areas where the nutrient regime in poor to medium. It is found on midslope to upper slope topographic positions with south facing aspects. Soil drainage is rapid to very rapid. Parent materials consist of morainal, glaciofluvial and fluvial deposits. Soils in these areas are orthic eutric brunisols or orthic regosols.

The main shrub cover is bearberry, which occupies over 75% of the area. Other vegetation found in association with it includes Canada buffalo-berry, juniper, shrubby cinquefoil, saskatoon, aspen, prickly rose, Lindley’s aster, northern bedstraw, mountain golden rod, alpine hedysarum, western wood lily, slender wheat grass, purple reed grass, and hairy wild rye.

Ecosite b: Bearberry/Lichen

Due to coarse textured soils, this ecosite has a poor nutrient regime. It is located in areas with acidic, rapidly draining soils. Lodgepole pine is the main tree canopy species and remains for long periods of time in a fire edaphic climax community. b1: Bearberry/lichen Lodgepole pine (Pl)

This ecosite phase is found in subxeric and xeric moisture regimes and in poor to medium nutrient regimes. It may be located on level, crest, and upper slope positions topographically, and it is found on a variety of aspects. Soil drainage is well to rapid. Parent materials include glaciofluvial, fluvial and eolian deposits. Soils include eluviated eutric brunisols, and eluviated dystric brunisols.

A-14

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

The main tree canopy is composed of lodgepole pine, although small amounts of black spruce may occur. The shrub layer include bog cranberry, blueberry, black spruce, twin-flower, prickly rose and Labrador tea. Forbs, mosses and lichens include bunchberry, Schreber’s moss, knight’s plume moss, stair-step moss, reindeer lichen, studded leather lichen, and wooly coral.

Ecosite c: Hairy wild rye

This is a dry ecosite that occupies slopes with southerly aspects and coarse-textured soils. The nutrient regime ranges from poor to rich, with rich sites being located in areas where there is a greater percentage of hairy wild rye cover and deciduous tree cover. These ecosites may eventually succeed to spruce yet this process is slow; therefore the ecosite may remain in a pine/aspen-dominated form for a period of time. c1: Hairy wild rye Lodgepole pine (Pl)

The moisture and nutrient regime for this ecosite ranges from subxeric to submesic and from poor to rich. It occupies upper slope, midslope, crest, and level areas topographically and may face all aspects. Soil drainage is well to rapid. Parent materials include eolian, glaciofluvial, morainal/rock, morainal, lacustrotill, glaciolacustrine, glaciofluvial/morainal, and fluvial/glaciofluvial deposits. Soils found in this area include eluviated eutric brunisols, brunisolic gray luvisols, orthic gray luvisols, orthic eutric brunisols, orthic dystric brunisols, orthic dark brown chernozems and eluviated dystric brunisols.

Lodgepole pine is the dominant tree cover, yet the canopy also includes some aspen and white spruce. The shrub layer is dominated by Canada buffalo-berry, green alder, bog cranberry, prickly rose, bearberry, twin-flower, blueberry. Forbs and grasses include bunchberry, wild lily-of-the-valley, fireweed and hairy wild rye. Mosses include Schreber’s moss, stair-step moss and knight’s plume moss. c2: Hairy wild rye Aspen (Aw)

This ecosite phase is found in areas with a subxeric to mesic moisture regime and a very poor to medium nutrient regime. It can be located on midslope and upper slope positions, facing all aspects. Drainage from these areas is either well or rapid. Parent materials include glaciofluvial, eolian/morainal, and eolian/glaciofluvial. Soil subgroups include orthic eutric brunisols, brunisolic gray luvisols, orthic gray luvisols, and eluviated eutric brunisols.

Aspen is the dominant tree cover, although balsam poplar, white spruce, lodgepole pine and white birch may occur. The shrub layer includes prickly rose, blueberry, green alder, twin-flower, Canada buffalo- berry, bearberry, bog cranberry, willow, and Labrador tea. Forbs in the area include bunchberry, cream- colored vetchling, fireweed, wild strawberry, Lindley’s aster, and northern bedstraw. Grasses and mosses are comprised of hairy wild rye and stair-step moss.

A-15

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011 c3: Hairy wild rye Aspen-White spruce-Lodgepole pine (Aw-Sw-Pl)

A mesic to subxeric moisture and a poor to rich nutrient regime characterize this site. It may be found on midslope, upper slope, and crest topographic positions, facing all aspects. Soil drainage in these areas is well, moderately well or rapid. Parent materials include morainal, glaciofluvial, eolian/morainal and glaciolacustrine. Soil subgroups include orthic eutric brunisols, brunisolic gray luvisols, and gleyed gray luvisols.

The main tree canopy includes aspen, lodgepole pine white spruce and balsam poplar. Labrador tea constitutes the majority of the shrub layer. It is found in association with bog cranberry, prickly rose, green alder, twin-flower and Canada buffalo-berry. Forbs, grasses and mosses include bunchberry, fireweed, common pink wintergreen, wild strawberry, hairy wild rye, marsh reed grass, Schreber’s moss, stair-step moss and knight’s plume moss. c4: Hairy wild rye White spruce (Sw)

This ecosite is found on submesic areas with a medium moisture regime. It can be found in midslope positions facing north, south or west. Drainage is well to moderately well. Parent materials include morainal, eolian/morainal, or eolian/glaciofluvial deposits. Soil subgroups include orthic eutric brunisols, orthic humic gleysols, orthic gray luvisols, eluviated eutric brunisols, and brunisolic gray luvisols.

The tree canopy is dominated by white spruce although aspen may occasionally occur. Shrubs include prickly rose, twin-flower, willow, Canada buffalo-berry, and bearberry. Forbs include bunchberry, showy aster, tall lungwort, fireweed, and cream-colored vetchling. Hairy wild rye makes up approximately 25% of the ground layer. Mosses consist of stair-step moss, wiry fern moss, and knight’s plume moss.

Ecosite d: Labrador tea/mesic

This ecosite is found on acidic soils that have a subxeric to subhygric moisture regime and a poor to medium nutrient regime. It typically occurs in upland or level topographical positions. At a mature stage, this ecosite will be dominated by black spruce although there may be some old, residual pine left in the canopy. Due to high fire frequency, this ecosite rarely reaches a mature successional stage. d1: Labrador tea/mesic Lodgepole pine-Black spruce (Pl-Sb)

This ecosite phase is found in mesic, submesic and subhygric moisture regimes and in poor to medium nutrient regimes. It is located in a range of topographic positions from level, midslope, to and upper slope. It can be found on slopes facing all aspects. Drainage ranges from moderately well to well. Parent materials include morainal and glaciofluvial deposits. Soil subgroups include brunisolic gray luvisols, orthic gray luvisols, eluviated dystric brunisols and eluviated eutric brunisols.

The tree canopy includes lodgepole pine and black spruce. Shrubs include Labrador tea, bog cranberry, blueberry, black spruce, twin-flower, green alder and prickly rose. Forbs, mosses and lichen include bunchberry, Schreber’s moss, knight’s plume moss, stair-step moss and reindeer moss.

A-16

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Ecosite e: Low-bush cranberry

This is the modal ecosite for the Lower Foothills natural subregion. As these sites develop, white spruce and balsam fir will eventually form the climax ecosite. As the stand matures from a deciduous dominated stand to a conifer dominated stand, shrub understory structure and diversity decreases. As the diversity and species richness of the forb and shrub layers decrease, the diversity and cover of the moss layer increases. e1: Low-bush cranberry Lodgepole pine (Pl)

This site is found in mesic and subhygric areas with poor to rich nutrient regimes. It can be found on midslope, upper slope, and level positions facing all aspects. Drainage ranges from imperfect to well. Parent materials include morainal deposits. Soil subgroups consist of orthic gray luvisols, brunisolic gray luvisols, gleyed gray luvisols, eluviated eutric brunisols.

Lodgepole pine composes the majority of the tree canopy, although white spruce and aspen may be interspersed throughout the tree layer. There is a moderate percentage of green alder in the shrub layer, along with low-bush cranberry, twin-flower, and prickly rose. Bunchberry, wild sarsaparilla, dewberry, fireweed, and stiff club-moss are included in the forb layer. Grasses include marsh reed grass and hairy wild rye. Mosses compose a large part of ground cover and include Schreber’s moss, stair-step moss, and knight’s plume moss. e2: Low-bush cranberry Aspen (Aw)

This ecosite is found in mesic, submesic and subhygric moisture regimes with nutrient regimes ranging from medium to rich. It is found on midslope, upper slope and level topographic positions, facing all aspects. Soil drainage ranges from well, moderately well to imperfect. Parent materials include morainal and glaciofluvial deposits. Soil subgroups found in the area include orthic gray luvisols, brunisolic gray luvisols, gleyed gray luvisols, and eluviated eutric brunisols.

Aspen, balsam poplar, white birch and white spruce dominate the tree canopy. The shrub layer is composed of green alder, prickly rose, low-bush cranberry, Canada buffalo-berry, twin-flower, wild red raspberry, and aspen. The forb layer is quite diverse and includes wild sarsaparilla, bunchberry, fireweed, dewberry, common pink wintergreen, wild strawberry, and cream-colored vetchling. Grasses identified in the area include marsh reed grass and hairy wild rye. e3: Low-bush cranberry Aspen–White spruce-Lodgepole pine (Aw-Sw-Pl)

This ecosite phase can be found in areas with moisture regimes ranging from mesic to subhygric and nutrient regimes ranging from rich to medium. These sites can be found on level, midslope, upper slope or level terrain facing all aspects. Drainage ranges from imperfect to well. Soils developed from morainal parent materials. Soils found in the area include brunisolic gray luvisols, orthic gray luvisols, and orthic luvic gleysols.

A-17

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Diversity is high for every layer in this ecosite phase. The tree canopy consists of aspen, white spruce, lodgepole pine, balsam poplar, black spruce, white birch, balsam fir and subalpine fir. Shrubs in the area include green alder, low-bush cranberry, prickly rose, twin-flower, white spruce, and Canada buffalo- berry. Forbs in the area include bunchberry, wild sarsaparilla, fireweed, dewberry, tall lungwort, cream- colored vetchling, palmate-leaved coltsfoot, and wild strawberry. Grasses and mosses are composed of hairy wild rye, marsh reed grass, stair-step moss, Schreber’s moss, and knight’s plume moss. e4: Low-bush cranberry White spruce (Sw)

This ecosite may be found in areas that are mesic and subhygric and with nutrient regimes ranging from poor to rich. It can be found on midslope, level, upper slope and lower slope topographical positions. It occupies all aspects, except for westerly facing slopes. Soil drainage ranges from imperfect to well. Parent materials include morainal, glaciofluvial, or fluvial deposits. Soil subgroups include orthic gray luvisols, brunisolic gray luvisols, and orthic luvic gleysols.

The tree canopy is dominated by white spruce, with moderate amounts of balsam and subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, aspen and balsam poplar included in the canopy. Shrubs include twin-flower, low-bush cranberry, prickly rose, green alder, balsam and subalpine fir. The forb layer is quite diverse and includes bunchberry, tall lungwort, dewberry, palmate-leaved coltsfoot, bishop’s cap, and fireweed. Marsh reed grass is the dominant grass within the ecosite phase. The majority of ground cover is dominated by stair- step moss. There is also a fair percentage of knight’s plume moss and Schreber’s moss.

Ecosite f: Bracted honeysuckle

This ecosite occurs in subhygric areas that are nutrient rich. They are located on mid to lower slopes where they receive nutrient rich seepage for part of the year. This ecosite tends to be the most productive of all ecosite for this natural subregion as well as the entire province. f1: Bracted honeysuckle

The moisture regime for this ecosite ranges from mesic to hygric and it can be found in nutrient medium to rich areas. Topographically, it is located on lower slope to upper slope positions with northerly or easterly aspects. Drainage ranges form well to imperfect. Parent materials found in the area are form morainal or fluvial/morainal origins. Soils found in the area include brunisolic gray luvisols, orthic gray luvisols, orthic luvic gleysols, and gleysolic gray luvisols.

The tree canopy is dominated by lodgepole pine. Balsam and subalpine fir, white spruce and aspen are found in the canopy in very small percentages. Green alder is the dominant shrub. Low-bush cranberry, bracted honeysuckle, prickly rose, wild red raspberry, twin-flower, and devil’s club are also found in the shrub layer in lesser percentages. Forbs in the area include bunchberry, wild sarsaparilla, stiff club-moss, oak fern, dewberry, fireweed and bishop’s cap. Marsh reed grass is the only grass identified in the area. Schreber’s moss, knight’s plume moss, and stair-step moss also occur in this ecosite phase.

A-18

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011 f2: Bracted honeysuckle Aspen-Lodgepole pine (Aw-Pb)

This ecosite is found in a moisture regime ranging from mesic to hygric. It can be found in nutrient medium to rich regimes. It is located on level to upper slope topographical positions. It can be found on slopes with aspects facing north, south and east. Soil drainage ranges from poor to well. Morainal, glaciofluvial and fluvial are the typical parent materials. Soil subgroups include orthic gray luvisols, gleyed gray luvisols, brunisolic gray luvisols, orthic eutric brunisols, and eluviated eutric brunisols.

The canopy is dominated by aspen but also includes white birch, balsam poplar, white spruce and lodgepole pine. Shrubs include bracted honeysuckle, low-bush cranberry, prickly rose, green alder, river alder, currant, wild red raspberry, dogwood and twin-flower. There is a great abundance of forbs in this ecosite; they include wild sarsaparilla, bunchberry, fireweed, dewberry, tall lungwort bishop’s-cap palmate-leaved coltsfoot, oak fern, woodland horsetail and common pink wintergreen. Mosses and lichens are rarely encountered in this ecosite phase. f3: Bracted honeysuckle Aspen-White spruce-Lodgepole pine (Aw-Sw-Pl)

This ecosite phase is found in mesic to subhygric moisture regimes and nutrient medium to very rich substrates. It can be found in level to crest positions on the landscape. Drainage is imperfect to well. Parent materials found in the area include brunisolic gray luvisols, orthic gray luvisols, orthic luvic gleysols and gleysolic gray luvisols.

The tree canopy contains an equally mixed layer of aspen and white spruce, as well as some lodgepole pine, balsam poplar, white birch, balsam fir, and subalpine fir. The shrub and forb layers are very diverse. Shrubs include green alder, low-bush cranberry, bracted honeysuckle, balsam and subalpine fir, prickly rose, twin-flower, currant, wild red raspberry and dogwood. Forbs include wild sarsaparilla, bunchberry, dewberry, bishop’s cap, stiff club moss, oak fern, fireweed, tall lungwort, palmate-leaved coltsfoot and common pink wintergreen. Grasses and mosses are less abundant in this phase then in other phases, but include marsh reed grass, stair-step moss, Schreber’s moss and knight’s plume moss. f4: Bracted honeysuckle White spruce (Sw)

This ecosite is found in areas that have a mesic to hygric moisture regime and a medium to rich nutrient regime. It can be found from level to upper slope positions on the landscape and at north, south and east aspects. Soil drainage is poor to well on this ecosite. Parent materials range from morainal, fluvial, lacustrine and glaciolacustrine origins. Soil subgroups include orthic luvic gleysols, orthic gray luvisols, gleyed gray luvisols, brunisolic gray luvisols and gleyed eluviated dystric brunisols.

Vegetation found in this ecosite phase is diverse. The tree canopy is dominated by white spruce, yet there is also a great amount of balsam fir, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, aspen, and white birch. Shrubs include balsam and subalpine fir, twin-flower, bracted honeysuckle, low-bush cranberry, green alder, prickly rose, currant, devil’s club, river alder and wild red raspberry. Forbs include bunchberry, wild sarsaparilla, dewberry, oak fern, bishop’s-cap, woodland horsetail, tall lungwort and palmate-leaved

A-19

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011 coltsfoot. Marsh reed grass is found in this phase. There is an abundant moss layer which includes species such as stair-step moss, knight’s plume moss, and Schreber’s moss.

Ecosite g: Meadow

This ecosite is found in mesic to subhygric areas where seepage and flooding continually add nutrients to the soil. This ecosite has thick Ah horizons and loamy textured soils. Grasses, forbs and shrubs generally dominate this ecosite. Once trees establish, the soils are conducive to rapid growth. g1: Shrubby meadow

This ecosite is located in subhygric to subhydric moisture regimes and in medium to rich nutrient regimes. It is found in level, toe, or depressional areas on the landscape with southerly or level aspects. Drainage is imperfect to poor. Parent materials include fluvial and morainal deposits. Soils identified in the area include rego humic gleysols, orthic regosols, regosolic gleysols, orthic gleysols, and gleyed cumulic regosols.

The shrub layer is dominated by willow. Dwarf birch, currant and river alder are also included in this ecosite phase. Forbs include cow parsnip, veiny meadow rue, tall lungwort, fireweed, common dandelion, common yarrow, tall larkspur, three-flowered avens, marsh hedge-nettle, wild vetch, large-leaved yellow avens, northern bedstraw and yellow and purple avens. Marsh reed grass covers a quarter of the ground. Some sedges, slender wheat grass and tufted moss are also found in association with this ecosite phase. g2: Forb meadow

This ecosite phase can be found in subhygric and mesic moisture regimes and in rich and very rich nutrient regimes. This ecosite is located on level terrain with south, east and level aspects. Soil drainage is imperfect to well and the main parent material is fluvial. Soils include cumulic humic regosols, orthic regosols, gleyed cumulic regosols, and cumulic regosols.

The forb layer is dominated by long-stalked chickweed. Other forbs include veiny meadow rue, cow parsnip, cow parsnip, common nettle, common yarrow, common dandelion, large northern aster, tall lungwort, wild vetch, yellow avens, cream-colored vetchling, and tall larkspur. Grasses are equally abundant in this ecosite phase and include fringed brome, marsh reed grass, awnless brome, and sedge.

Ecosite h: Labrador tea/subhygric

This ecosite is located on poorly drained, acidic soils that have a poor nutrient regime. Black spruce is generally included within the canopy of younger stands. Due to slower growth rates, black spruce will eventually form a secondary canopy in a lodgepole pine dominated ecosite. Very mature stands will be dominated by black spruce, with some residual pine left in the canopy.

A-20

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011 h1: Labrador tea/subhygric Black spruce-Lodgepole pine (Sb-Pl)

This ecosite is found in areas that are mesic to subhydric and in nutrient poor to medium substrates. It can be found from level to crest positions topographically and on slopes with aspects that are level, southerly, northerly and westerly. Drainage ranges from imperfect to poor. Parent materials include morainal and fluvial deposits. Soils associated with this ecosite phase includes orthic luvic gleysols, gleyed gray luvisols, and orthic gleysols.

Black spruce and lodgepole pine dominate the tree canopy, although there may be some white spruce growing in association with these species. Shrubs include Labrador tea, bog cranberry, black spruce, blueberry, green alder, and twin-flower. Forbs and grasses include bunchberry and marsh reed grass. Mosses are very abundant and include Schreber’s moss, stair-step moss, knight’s plume moss, and peat moss. Lichen include reindeer lichen and studded leather lichen.

Ecosite I: Horsetail

Due to flooding and seepage, this ecosite is continually enhanced with nutrients. The high water tables allow for gleysolic soils to develop and in turn, allow for organic matter to develop. Horsetails and marsh reed grass are the main contributors to organic matter build up on the forest floor. The high soil water content is the main factor in controlling succession. When trees are removed, the water table rises, thus making it difficult for trees to establish. i1: Horsetail Balsam poplar-Aspen (Pb-Aw)

This ecosite phase is located in mesic, subhygric and hydric moisture conditions and on substrates with medium to very rich nutrient regimes. These sites can be found at midslope and level topographical positions that possess a northerly, easterly, southerly or level aspect. Soils are drained at a rapid to imperfect rate. Parent materials consist of fluvial, glaciofluvial, and glaciolacustrine deposits. Soil subgroups include orthic luvic gleysol, orthic eutric brunisols, humic luvic gleysols, gleyed cumulic regosols, eluviated eutric brunisols, and cumulic regosols.

Aspen and balsam poplar dominate the tree canopy, yet small amounts of white spruce are also present. Prickly rose, which grows in association with wild red raspberry, willow, saskatoon, aspen, snowberry and currant, dominates the shrub layer. Common horsetail dominates the forb layer, yet fireweed, meadow horsetail, wild strawberry, palmate-leaved coltsfoot and tall lungwort are also found. Grasses include marsh reed grass and fringed brome. i2: Horsetail Balsam poplar-White spruce (Pb-Sw)

This ecosite is typically found in mesic or subhygric moisture conditions and in medium or rich nutrient regimes. It can be found in midslope or level topographical positions with level or easterly aspects. Soil drainage is moderately well to well. Parent materials consist of morainal, fluvial/morainal, and fluvial materials. Rego gleysols, orthic gray luvisols, and eluviated dystric brunisols are the dominant soil subgroups found in this ecosite phase.

A-21

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

White spruce is the common dominant tree species, yet depending on biophysical factors, aspen, white birch and balsam poplar may be dominant on some sites. The shrub layer is composed of prickly rose, twin-flower, willow, low-bush cranberry, white birch, white spruce, Canada buffalo-berry, and bracted honeysuckle. The forb layer consists mainly of common and meadow horsetail. Other forbs include tall lungwort, bunchberry, dewberry, palmate-leaved coltsfoot, tall larkspur, and common pink wintergreen. Grasses and mosses include marsh reed grass, stair-step moss, and knight’s plume moss. i3: Horsetail White spruce (Sw)

This ecosite phase is found in subhygric, hygric, subhydric and mesic moisture regimes and in medium to very rich nutrient regimes. It can commonly be found in lower slope, midslope and level topographical positions with a northerly, southerly, or level aspect. Soil drainage is well to imperfect. Parent materials originated from fluvial, morainal, glaciolacustrine, and colluvial materials. Soil subgroups include cumulic regosols, orthic luvic gleysols, orthic humic gleysols, and orthic gleysols.

White spruce dominates the tree canopy, yet small amounts of balsam and subalpine fir, balsam poplar and aspen may be interspersed throughout the canopy. Shrubs present include twin-flower, prickly rose, low-bush cranberry and bracted honeysuckle. The most common forbs are meadow and common horsetail, yet bunchberry, tall lungwort, dewberry and palmate-leaved coltsfoot are also found. Marsh reed grass is the most common grass found. Mosses are the dominant ground cover and include stair- step moss, knight’s plume moss and Schreber’s moss.

Ecosite j: Labrador tea/horsetail

This ecosite is commonly found in lower topographical positions where water tends to accumulate. This allows for gleysolic soils to develop and for organic matter to accumulate. The Labrador tea/horsetail phase is the edaphic climax community. After disturbances, water tables rise, which makes it difficult for trees to establish. j1: Labrador tea/horsetail Black spruce-White spruce (Sb-Sw)

This ecosite phase is found in hygric, subhygric and hydric conditions with medium, poor or rich nutrient regimes. It can be found on level, lower slope, toe, or depressional positions topographically with aspects facing west or north. Soil drainage is poor to very poor. Parent materials include organic, morainal, glaciolacustrine, organic/glaciolacustrine, and organic/fluvial deposits. Soil subgroups include terric mesisols, typic mesisols, terric humisols, and orthic gleysols.

Black spruce is the dominant tree species on this site, yet there is some white spruce present in the canopy. Labrador tea is the most abundant shrub, and it co-exists with lesser amounts of bracted honeysuckle, prickly rose, and bog cranberry. Common, woodland and meadow horsetail are all present in the forb layer, and smaller percentages of dwarf scouring-rush, bunchberry, and palmate-leaved coltsfoot also exist. The grass and moss layer includes sedge, stair-step moss, knight’s plume moss, Schreber’s moss, and peat moss.

A-22

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Ecosite k: Bog

This ecosite can be found in level and depressional areas where water accumulates and becomes stagnant. The impeded drainage enhances the accumulation of organic matter, which is composed of decomposing peat moss. The stunted black spruce canopy is maintained as the edaphic climax due to the high water tables. Succession to this stage is extremely slow. k1: Treed bog

The moisture and nutrient regime for this ecosite phase is subhydric to hydric and poor to medium respectively. It can be found in topographic positions with a level or northerly aspect. Drainage for these areas is poor to very poor. Parent materials include organic, organic/glaciolacustrine, organic/lacustrine, and morainal deposits. Soil subgroups include terric mesisols, typic mesisols, terric humic fibrisols, terric fibric mesisols, terric humisols, and mesic fibrisols.

Black spruce is the dominant tree occurring in this ecosite phase. Shrubs include Labrador tea, black spruce, willow, bog cranberry, and small bog cranberry. The forb and grass layer includes cloudberry, three-leaved Solomon’s seal, dwarf scouring rush, woodland horsetail, and sedge. Mosses compose most of the ground cover and include peat moss, stair-step moss, Schreber’s moss, knight’s plume moss, and tufted hair moss. k2: Shrubby bog

This ecosite phase is found in hygric conditions and in poor to very poor nutrient conditions. It may be found in level and depressional areas with level aspects. Drainage ranges from poor to imperfect. Parent materials include organic/glaciolacustrine, organic, and glaciofluvial/morainal deposits. Soils subgroups are composed of terric mesisols, rego gleysols, and orthic luvic gleysols.

The most common shrubs in this ecosite phase includes Labrador tea, bog cranberry, and blueberry. Other, less abundant shrubs include black spruce, lodgepole pine, dwarf birch, and small bog cranberry. Cloudberry is the most dominant forb. Mosses and lichen include peat moss, common hair-cap, Schreber’s moss, slender hair-cap, reindeer lichen, and spraypaint lichen.

Ecosite l: Poor fen

This ecosite is found in level and depressional areas where water accumulates; yet there is still some water movement through the substratum. This contributes to high moisture levels and medium nutrient levels. The high water table allows for organic matter to accumulate. Organic matter in this ecosite is composed of peat moss, sedges, golden moss and tufted moss. Black spruce and tamarack are both present in the tree phase but in a stunted form. Succession occurs over hundreds to thousands of years, therefore recovery from disturbance is extremely slow.

A-23

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011 l1: Treed poor fen

This ecosite phase is found in hygric to hydric moisture regimes and on poor to rich nutrient substrates. It occupies lower slope, level, or depressional topographical positions that possess a north or level aspect. Soil drainage is poor to very poor. Parent materials are composed of organic materials. Typical soils include typic mesisols, typic fibrisols, and terric mesisols.

A sparse canopy of black spruce or tamarack may dominate sites. Shrubs consist of Labrador tea, dwarf birch, black spruce, willow, tamarack, bog cranberry and small bog cranberry. Forbs include three-leaved Solomon’s seal, common horsetail, swamp horsetail, buck-bean, and cloudberry. Grasses and mosses include sedges, marsh reed grass, peat moss, golden moss, stair-step moss, tufted moss, and Schreber’s moss. l2: Shrubby poor fen

This ecosite phase can be found in areas with a subhydric, hydric, or hygric moisture regime and a poor to rich nutrient regime. It is commonly found in midslope positions with a westerly, southerly, northerly, or level aspect. Drainage is very poor to poor. Parent materials include organic and organic/morainal deposits. Soil subgroups include typic mesisols, terric mesisols, orthic static cryosols, mesic humisols, and fibric mesisols.

Dwarf birch and willow dominate the shrub layer. Other shrubs include black spruce, tamarack, Labrador tea, and small bog cranberry. The forb and grass layers are composed of buck-bean, swamp horsetail, three-leaved Solomon’s seal, and sedges. Mosses are abundant and consist of peat moss, golden moss, tufted moss and brown moss.

Ecosite m: Rich fen

This ecosite is characterized by rich nutrient conditions and wet soil conditions. Moving water is at the or near the surface for a portion of the growing season. The water enriches the soil with oxygen, thus increasing the soil nutrient regime. Organic matter accumulates from the litter left by decomposing sedges and mosses. As with other wetland ecosites, succession takes place slowly, and recovery from disturbance takes a long time. m1: Treed rich fen

This ecosite phase is found in subhydric and hydric moisture conditions and in medium to rich nutrient conditions. It can be found in depressional areas that have a level, westerly, or easterly aspect. Drainage is poor to very poor. Parent materials originated from organic and organic/glaciofluvial deposits. Soils typically found in these areas include typic mesisols, terric mesic fibrisols, terric mesisols, terric fibrisols, humic mesisols, and terric mesic fibrisols.

Either tamarack or black spruce can dominate these sites. The shrub layer is composed of dwarf birch, Labrador tea, willow, tamarack, currant, and black spruce. The forb layer includes common horsetail,

A-24

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011 three-leaved Solomon’s seal, marsh marigold, buck-bean and marsh marigold. Grasses include sedges and marsh reed grass. The moss layer is dominated golden moss, with lesser percentages of tufted moss, peat moss, and marsh magnificent moss present. m2: Shrubby rich fen

This ecosite phase is located in hygric, subhydric and hydric moisture conditions and in poor to very rich nutrient regimes. It occupies level and depressional topographical positions that have a level aspect. Drainage from these areas is very poor to poor. Parent materials are derived from organic deposits. Soil subgroups include typic mesisols, rego gleysols, fibric mesisols, typic fibrisols, and terric mesisols.

Willow and dwarf birch dominate the shrub layer. Small percentages of tamarack and Labrador tea also present in this layer. Forbs and grasses include buck-bean, marsh cinquefoil, marsh marigold, sedges, and marsh reed grass. Mosses are abundant and include golden moss, tufted moss, brown moss, peat moss, and sausage moss. m3: Graminoid rich fen

This ecosite phase is found in hydric areas with a rich or medium nutrient regime. It is located in level topographical areas possessing level aspects. Drainage is very poor. Parent materials consist of organic/lacustrine and organic deposits. Soil subgroups include typic fibrisols and terric humisols.

Grasses dominate this phase with sedge species and marsh reed grass. Willow and marsh cinquefoil are present in small percentages. Mosses include sausage moss, yellow sausage moss, and brown moss.

Ecosite n: Marsh

This ecosite is found around shorelines of water bodies in level and depressional areas. The rooting zone contains water for at least part of the growing season. This is the seral stage of succession to the fen and bog ecosites. Community composition is determined largely by disturbance regime. n1: Marsh

The marsh ecosite phase is found in subhydric and hydric areas with rich nutrient regimes. It occupies level and depressional areas topographically that have a level aspect. Drainage is poor to very poor. Parent materials originated from organic, lacustrine, and fluvial deposits. Soil subgroups include rego humic gleysols, rego gleysols, and hydric fibrisols.

The vegetation community is primarily composed of common cattail, sedges and bulrushes. Other vegetation includes northern willowherb, marsh reed grass, rushes, and fowl bluegrass.

A-25

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

A.3 Ecosite and Ecosite Phase Descriptions of the Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion

Ecosite

In this classification system, an ecosite is a functional unit defined by moisture and nutrient regime. It is based on the combined interaction of biophysical factors, which together dictate the availability of moisture and nutrients for plant growth, and is not tied to specific landforms or plant communities, as is the case in other systems. Thus, different ecosites vary in their moisture regime and/or nutrient regime.

Ecosites are ecological units that develop under similar environmental influences, such as climate, moisture, and nutrient regime. Therefore, ecosites are groups of one or more ecosite phases that occur within the same portion of the moisture/nutrient grid (edatope).

The name designated for each ecosite is meant to convey some information about the ecology of the unit and are frequently named after plant species that are common or typical of the ecosite but may not be present in every plot or stand belonging to that ecosite.

Ecosite Phase

Based on the dominant species in the canopy, the ecosite phase is a subdivision of the ecosite level. For instance, on lowland sites where a tree canopy may or may not be present, the tallest structural vegetation layer with greater than 5% cover determines the ecosite phase. Thus, in the case of the bog ecosite (I), treed and shrubby ecosite phases exist. Ecosite phases are generally mappable units which are identified by the ecosite letter (e.g., d) and name (e.g., low-bush cranberry) along with a number (e.g., 2) representing the ecosite phase.

The ecosite phase level of classification is defined by the dominant species in the canopy, in combination with the canopy composition or structure. This approach has a strong ecological basis as the tree canopy composition indicates environmental conditions, influences structure, diversity, composition, and abundance of the understory tree species. In turn, the tree canopy and canopy dependent factors, such as understory species abundance and composition and litter pH interact to produce the type and quantity of organic matter, its decomposition rate, and a site’s nutrient availability.

Plant Community Type

The lowest level taxonomic unit in the classification system is the plant community type. The defining factor at this level is the understory species composition and abundance. Generally, plant community types are named by combining the name of the dominant plant species in each structural vegetation layer (e.g., a1.2 Pj/blueberry/lichen). Plant community types are not described in this report.

In brackets are percentages which represent the proportion of the sample in which each variable class occurred. This percentage represents the frequency of occurrence within the number of sampled plots for which data were collected for that variable.

A-26

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

The tree stratum is the collective percentage of the ground surface covered by the vertically projected crowns for all tree species extending upwards from 5 m in height. Discussion of this stratum is often according to separate species appearing in the canopy. A tall shrub stratum represents woody plants between 2.5 m and 5 m tall, including deciduous shrubs and coniferous tree regeneration, comprise this stratum. A low shrub stratum consists of all woody plants less than 2.5 m high, including deciduous shrubs and coniferous tree regeneration. The lower end of this stratum is often within the same vertical range as the herbaceous. The herbaceous stratum consists of all low growing, non-woody, vegetation regardless of height. Categories separately measured within this stratum consist of herbs, grasses, sedges, mosses, lichens, and litter.

A.4 Rare Species Ranking

Table A-4 Federal Species at Risk Act Rare Species Conservation Ranks

Federal SARA Rank Rank Description Extirpated A species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere. Endangered A species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened A species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. Special Concern A species that may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Table A-5 Alberta General Status of Wild Species 2005 Provincial Conservation Ranks

Alberta Provincial Rank Rank Description At Risk Any species known to be "At Risk" after formal detailed status assessment and legal designation as "Endangered" or "Threatened" under the Wildlife Act in Alberta. May Be At Risk Any species that "May Be At Risk" of extinction or extirpation, and is therefore a candidate for detailed risk assessment. Sensitive Any species that is not at risk of extinction or extirpation but may require special attention or protection to prevent it from becoming at risk. Secure A species that is not "At Risk," "May Be At Risk" or "Sensitive." Undetermined Any species for which insufficient information, knowledge or data is available to reliably evaluate its general status Not Assessed Any species that has not been examined. Exotic/Alien Any species that has been introduced as a result of human activities. Extirpated/Extinct Any species no longer thought to be present in Alberta (“Extirpated”) or no longer believed to be present anywhere in the world (“Extinct”). Accident/Vagrant Any species occurring infrequently and unpredictably in Alberta, i.e., outside its usual range.

A-27

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-6 Alberta Conservation Information Management System Standard Subnational Conservation Ranks

Provincial Rank Definition SX Taxon is believed to be extirpated from the province. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered. SH Known from only historical records but still some hope of rediscovery. There is evidence that the taxon may no longer be present, but not enough to state this with certainty. S1 Known from five or fewer occurrences, or especially vulnerable to extirpation because of other factor(s). S2 Known from twenty or fewer occurrences, or vulnerable to extirpation because of other factors. S3 Known from 100 or fewer occurrences, or somewhat vulnerable due to other factors, such as restricted range, relatively small population sizes, or other factors. S4 Apparently Secure – taxon is uncommon but not rare; potentially some cause for long term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 Secure – taxon is common, widespread, and abundant. Variant Subnational Conservation Ranks S#S# A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3 or S1S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the taxon. Ranges cannot skip more than two ranks (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4). SU Taxon is currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information (e.g., native vs. non-native stats not resolved). SNR SNR Not ranked - conservation status not yet assessed. SNA SNA Not Applicable – A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species or ecosystem is not a suitable target for conservation activities (e.g., introduced species).

Table A-7 Global Standard Conservation Ranks

Rank Definition GX Presumed Extinct (species) — Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. Eliminated (ecological communities)—Eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential due to extinction of dominant or characteristic taxa and/or elimination of the sites and disturbance factors on which the type depends. GH Possibly Extinct (species) Eliminated (ecological communities and systems) — Known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery. There is evidence that the species may be extinct or the ecosystem may be eliminated throughout its range, but not enough to state this with certainty. Examples of such evidence include (1) that a species has not been documented in approximately 20-40 years despite some searching or some evidence of significant habitat loss or degradation; (2) that a species or ecosystem has been searched for unsuccessfully, but not thoroughly enough to presume that it is extinct or eliminated throughout its range.1 G1 Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 Imperiled—At high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. G3 Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

A-28

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-7 Global Standard Conservation Ranks (cont’d)

Rank Definition G4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 Secure—Common; widespread and abundant. Variant Ranks G#G# Range Rank—A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3, G1G3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of a taxon or ecosystem type. Ranges cannot skip more than two ranks (e.g., GU should be used rather than G1G4). GU Unrankable—-Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. NOTE: Whenever possible (when the range of uncertainty is three consecutive ranks or less), a range rank (e.g., G2G3) should be used to delineate the limits (range) of uncertainty. GNR Unranked—Global rank not yet assessed. GNA Not Applicable—A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities.2 Ranks Qualifiers ? Inexact Numeric Rank—Denotes inexact numeric rank; this should not be used with any of the Variant Global Conservation Status Ranks or GX or GH. Q Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority— Distinctiveness of this entity as a taxon or ecosystem type at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon or type in another taxon or type, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) conservation status rank. The “Q” modifier is only used at a global level and not at a national or subnational level. C Captive or Cultivated Only—Taxon at present is extinct in the wild across their entire native range but is extant in cultivation, in captivity, as a naturalized population (or populations) outside their native range, or as a reintroduced population not yet established. The “C” modifier is only used at a global level and not at a national or subnational level. Possible ranks are GXC or GHC. Infraspecific Taxon Conservation Status Ranks T# Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial)—The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) are indicated by a “T-rank” following the species' global rank. Rules for assigning T-ranks follow the same principles outlined above. For example, the global rank of a critically imperiled subspecies of an otherwise widespread and common species would be G5T1. A T subrank cannot imply the subspecies or variety is more abundant than the species. For example, a G1T2 subrank should not occur. A vertebrate animal population, (e.g., listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act or assigned candidate status) may be tracked as an infraspecific taxon and given a T-rank; in such cases a Q is used after the T-rank to denote the taxon's informal taxonomic status.

NOTES: 1 Possibly Eliminated ecological communities and systems may include ones presumed eliminated throughout their range, with no or virtually no likelihood of rediscovery, but with the potential for restoration, for example, American Chestnut (Forest). 2 A global conservation status rank may be not applicable for several reasons, related to its relevance as a conservation target. In such cases, typically the species is a hybrid without conservation value, of domestic origin, or the ecosystem is non-native, for example, ruderal vegetation, a plantation, agricultural field, or developed vegetation (lawns, gardens etc).

A-29

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix A: Vegetation February 2011

Table A-8 Rare Ecological Community Provincial Rankings

Provincial Rank Definition S1 Five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining hectares. S2 Six to 20 occurrences or few remaining hectares. S3 Twenty-one to 80 occurrences. Might be rare and local throughout its range or found locally, even abundantly, in a restricted range. S4 Apparently secure provincially though it might be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. S5 Demonstrably secure provincially though it might be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. SNR Element is not yet ranked. SU Unrankable – Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. SNA Not Applicable – A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. S#S# Range Rank* – A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4). Modifers Q Can be added to any global rank to denote questionable taxonomy (e.g. G2Q = 6 to 20 known occurrences, but questions exist concerning the classification of this type). Cannot be used with provincial ranks. ? Can be added to any rank to denote an inexact numeric rank (e.g. S1? = Believed to be five or fewer occurrences, but some doubt exists concerning status). NOTE: * Ranks can be combined to indicate a range (e.g. S2S3 = Between 6 and 80 occurrences throughout Alberta, but the exact status is uncertain). Combined ranks indicate a larger margin of error than ranks assigned a "?" qualifier.

A-30

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix B: Fisheries February 2011

APPENDIX B Fisheries

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix B: Fisheries February 2011

Physical Channel Data Geographical Data Transect 1 2 3 4 5 UTM Location: 11U 5971036 0492675 Channel and Flow Datum: NAD 83 Province: AB Channel Width (m) 134 166 168 155 127 Survey Date: August 25, 2010 Wetted Width (m) 133 86 73 144 106 Crew Initials: BC, KB Depth at 25% (m) 1.0 1.3 2.4 1.5 1.0 Vel. at 25% (m/s) NR NR NR NR NR Management Information Depth at 50% (m) 1.7 1.6 3.6 0.8 1.2 Class: Class C Vel. at 50% (m/s) NR NR NR NR NR Restricted Activity Period: September 1 to July 15 Depth at 75% (m) 2.2 1.2 1.6 0.7 1.6 Management Area: Edson Vel. at 75% (m/s) NR NR NR NR NR Fish Sampling Data Banks Methods: Angling (Spinning Gear) Left Bank Ht (m) NR NR NR NR NR Fish species captured: RNTR Right Bank Ht (m) NR NR NR NR NR Historical Data: BRTR, BLTR, BURB, FNDC, GRAY, Bank Stability NR NR NR NR NR LNDC, LNSC, MNWH, NRPK, RNTR, SPSC, WHSC Substrate Type and Distribution (%) Fines - - - - - Gravel 5 5 5 5 5 Cobble 90 90 90 90 90 Overall Habitat Rating: Moderate Boulder - - - - - Instream Cover (%) 80 80 80 80 80 Overhead Cover (%) 0 0 0 0 0 Habitat Assessment Summary Forage Fish Coarse Fish Sport Fish Rearing Habitat: Excellent Excellent Excellent Overwintering Habitat: Excellent Excellent Excellent Spawning Habitat: Moderate Moderate Moderate Migration: Excellent Excellent Excellent

Comments: The Athabasca River is one of the four major rivers in the province. The stream gradient in the upper reaches of the river is sufficient to maintain a cobble and gravel substrate and high-velocity flows. Channel width was about 166 m in the area of the proposed crossing with a maximum depth of about 1.6 m. The river habitat consists mainly of run (>75%) which is associated with straight sections of the river. Riffle habitat is also present in some areas, especially where the channel is more complex. Few pools or backwater areas are present and are generally shallow areas associated with islands and side bars. Riparian vegetation consists of shrubs, and coniferous and deciduous species which in places are found to the water’s edge. Instream cover consists of larger cobbles, pools, surface turbulence and turbidity. The river in this area has moderate to excellent habitat for rearing, overwintering, spawning and migration for various species of fish. Incidental angling conducted during the habitat assessment produced four rainbow trout (1 juvenile and 3 mature fish). The river is considered an important fishery for recreational value. Water Quality Data Proposed Crossing Methods Data Summary Sheet Athabasca River Date 25/08/10 Pipeline: Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD). TransCanada Grande Prairie Time of Day 13:55 Mainline - Vehicle Access: Water Temperature (°C) 13.5 Nosehill Creek Section Drive around pH 7.32

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 9.87 Conductivity (µs/cm) 226.7 Turbidity (NTU) 21.0

B-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix B: Fisheries February 2011

Photo 1: Athabasca River: View Upstream of Proposed Crossing Location, August 25, 2010

Photo 2: Athabasca River: View Downstream of Proposed Crossing Location, August 25, 2010

B-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix B: Fisheries February 2011

Photo 3: Athabasca River: View of Left Downstream Bank at Proposed Crossing Location, August 25, 2010

Photo 4: Athabasca River: View of Right Downstream Bank at Proposed Crossing Location, August 25, 2010

B-3

Watercourse Crossing Summary Sheet Unnamed Tributary to the Athabasca River

Site Information Waterway Name: Unnamed Tributary NTS Topographic #: 083F14 Restricted Activity Period: September 1 to July 15 UTM Location: 492259.426E 5971316.07N Legal Land Description: NW31‐056‐21 W5M Datum: 11NAD 83 Province: Alberta

Proposed Pipeline Crossing Methods Proposed Vehicle Crossing Methods

Primary Method: HDD Primary Method: Drive Around; use Existing Access Contingency Method: Isolated if flowing water or open cut if Contingency Method: Single‐Span Bridge or frozen to the bottom Ice/Snow Fill of the bed

Downstream View at Proposed Crossing Location Upstream View at Proposed Crossing Location

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

APPENDIX C Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

Abbreviations

CMT ...... Construction Management Team ECTL ...... Environmental Commitments Tracking List EPP ...... Environmental Protection Plan ESA ...... Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment HADD ...... harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (of fish habitat) MDZ ...... Minimal Disturbance Zone MSDS ...... Material Safety Data Sheet NEB ...... National Energy Board RAP ...... restricted activity period RoW ...... Right of Way

C-i

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

C.1 Contingency Crossing Plan

Section 16(1)(e) of CEAA states that an environmental assessment pursuant to the Act may require other matters relevant to a screening, including alternatives to the project. Alternatives means are the various technically and economically feasible ways a project can be implemented or carried out (CEA Agency 1998), and include alternative routes and methods of development.

The purpose of this Appendix is to describe a contingency crossing for the Athabasca River and the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River, where a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) method is planned. The information presented in this Appendix is specific to the contingency crossing method for the river and unnamed tributary, if required. If the HDD crossing fails, then the contingency crossing method proposed for the Athabasca River is an open cut and for the unnamed tributary an isolated crossing would be used unless it is dry or frozen to the bottom at the time of crossing, in which case, and open cut crossing would be employed.

Both the Athabasca River and unnamed tributary contingency crossings will be at the same location as the proposed HDD crossings. The Athabasca River contingency crossing is located at UTM Zone 11, Easting 492675, Northing 5971036 and it has a watercourse channel width of about 166 m. The unnamed tributary contingency crossing is located 400 m to the northwest of the crossing and joins the Athabasca River approximately 100 m downstream from the proposed crossing location. It has a watercourse channel width of about 1 to 2 m. Land use in the area of the contingency crossing locations consists mainly of forestry and industrial activity.

C.2 Crossing Alternatives Considered

C.2.1 Crossing Site Selection Criteria

The selection criteria used to locate a technically feasible contingency crossing site will be the same as those used on the overall route selection as outlined in the ESA, Section 4. The route selection process and general routing criteria takes into consideration a number of factors including landscape and terrain features, Valued Ecosystem Components, and regulatory and public input gathered through consultation.

C.2.2 Technical Alternatives

There are various possible alternative methods for a watercourse crossing, should the HDD fail. These methods include boring, aerial crossing, isolated crossing, or open cut.

A bore is a straight line drill underneath the river channel from the high water mark, or other suitable level, to the other side of the river. For the Athabasca River crossing, a bore is not technically feasible because the length of the bore is beyond the current engineering limits and the depth of bell holes (required to ensure the bore is deep enough underneath the river channel to provide the pipe adequate cover) was not considered technically feasible.

C-1

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

An aerial crossing was not considered a feasible alternative because of the length of the span required, potential safety concerns with suspension of the pipe over a river, and overall cost.

Isolated crossings using either a dam and pump or flume technique are crossing techniques that are well understood and have been used on numerous pipeline watercourse crossings in Alberta. Generally, isolated crossings are restricted to flow less than 1m3/sec and are not applicable to large rivers.

C.2.3 Environmental Considerations

The contingency crossing methods will create disturbance that could result in potential adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat. Depending on the method and time of year, effects on fish habitat may not be able to be mitigated and may result in a Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat.

The spatial boundaries for the contingency crossing for the fish and fish habitat component are the same as those outlined in the ESA. The temporal boundary for the assessment of the contingency crossing is the construction phase. For the contingency crossing, once the pipe is buried and placed in service, the potential effects of operations do not change from those assessed in the ESA

C.2.4 Consultation

Consultation will be on-going with provincial and federal regulators to address issues related to timing of construction, regulatory timing windows and resource specific setbacks, soils handling, reclamation and other mitigation measures identified throughout the ESA.

C.3 Contingency Crossings

C.3.1 Potential Environmental Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat

For the unnamed tributary an isolated open cut crossing will be undertaken at the same location. Mitigation measures as per the Isolated or Dry Open-cut Stream Crossings Operational Statement issued by Fisheries and Oceans will be implemented. Adherence to the measures within the Operational Statements will result in no effects on fish or fish habitat at the unnamed tributary.

If the Athabasca River crossing using the HDD method proves unsuccessful, then it is expected that a wet open cut trenched crossing will be undertaken at the same crossing location.

As identified in the ESA, the potential environmental effects of concern for fish and fish habitat include:

• introduction of deleterious substances; and • alteration of fish habitat.

The mechanisms for each of these environmental effects are described in the ESA, Section 7.6 and are applicable to the contingency crossing methods. General environmental protection measures to limit the effect on either fish or fish habitat are also described in the ESA, Section 7.6 and the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Section 13. Protection measures specific to the contingency crossing methods are

C-2

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011 described below. The objective of the identified mitigation measures is to ensure that the productive capacity of the fisheries resources at, and downstream of, the crossing site is protected and that federal and provincial regulatory requirements are met. Provided the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, potential environmental effects are predicted to be not significant. Introduction of Deleterious Substances

Environmental Effects

In general, the introduction of sediment into a watercourse may induce a wide range of biological effects. At lower suspended sediment concentrations, the effects can include subtle behavioural changes in fish such as avoidance reactions (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Avoidance reactions can lead to higher energy expenditures by individual fish and affect territorial responses in some species. At higher concentrations, the introduction of fine suspended sediments, such as silts and clays, can induce sublethal effects including reduced feeding efficiency, decreased predator avoidance, lower growth rates and impaired alevin development (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Fish mortality may also occur due to heavy gill abrasion at high sediment concentrations (Herbert and Merkins 1961). Continuous, elevated sediment levels can reduce overall fish production of a stream due to turbidity-related reductions in algae, benthic and aquatic insect production.

When water velocities slow, the sediment will settle out sooner and can degrade habitat quality. If high volumes of fines (silt, clay and sand) are deposited, pools and runs can be in-filled or the voids within gravel and cobble bed materials can become embedded. This alteration of downstream streambed conditions can affect the abundance and diversity of benthic invertebrate communities and availability of spawning areas (Reid and Anderson 2002). Given the characteristics of the Athabasca River and the expected flows at the time of construction, the zone of influence, where 90% of sediment is expected to be deposited will be in excess of 1000 m (Table C-1).

An open cut trenched crossing will release sediment into the watercourse. The effects of sediment release during open cut installation of a pipeline on a large river were studied by Golder (2000). As part of an open cut pipeline installation on the North Saskatchewan River, Golder (2000) monitored the sediment deposition at various distances downstream of the crossing. The percentage of fine material at the site 800 m downstream of the RoW decreased one week after construction. However, there was an increase of 6% in fine sediment at the transect 6 km downstream from the RoW. Transects at 20 and 40 km downstream did not show an increase. Transects at 800 m and 6 km downstream of the crossing both showed a decrease in fine sediment two months after construction compared to pre-construction conditions. Based on this study, it can be expected that an open cut crossing will result in the deposition of sediment in an area downstream of the crossing that persists until an event flushes the sediment downstream.

The trenched crossing of the Athabasca will be undertaken during the Restricted Activity Period (RAP) which is from September 1 to July 15. Based on the habitat in the vicinity, there is the potential for mountain whitefish to use the area for spawning and there is overwintering potential 100 m downstream from the crossing. Sediment from a wet open cut method has the potential to affect both mountain

C-3

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011 whitefish eggs and overwintering fish. Mitigation measures will reduce the amount of sediment, but a HADD is still possible and would require compensation.

Table C-1 Criteria for Determining the Zone of Influence Downstream from Watercourse Crossings

Stream Characteristics Length of Stream Dominant Zone of Type Width Slope Energy Substrate Velocity Habitat Influence (m) (m) L1 ≤ 10 Low Low Fines Low Runs and flats 200 L2 > 10 Low Low Fines Low Runs and flats 500 M1 ≤ 10 Moderate Moderate Fines, Moderate Long runs 200 Gravel & separated by Cobble short riffles M2 > 10 Moderate Moderate Fines, Moderate Long runs 500 Gravel & separated by Cobble short riffles H1 ≤ 10 Moderate High Gravel, Moderate Frequent riffles 300 to High Cobble & to High and cascades Boulder H2 > 10 Moderate High Gravel, Moderate Frequent riffles, 1,000 ≤ 20 to High Cobble & to High cascades and Boulder high velocity runs H3 > 20 Moderate High Cobble & Moderate Frequent riffles, >1,000 to High Boulder to High cascades and high velocity runs

SOURCE: Adapted from AMEC (2005). Criteria for establishing the length of the zone of influence downstream of the crossing (developed by P. Kalashnikoff).

The DFO pathways of effects models identify use of heavy equipment in or beside fish habitats as a potential source of contamination (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/habitat/modernizing- moderniser/pathways-sequences/) (DFO 2008). Hydrocarbons such as oil, gasoline, lubricants or hydraulic fluids can enter surface waters from machinery used for instream construction, or from maintenance and fuelling activities that are conducted too close to a watercourse. Hydrocarbons are deleterious substances that may kill fish or other aquatic biota directly, or may result in impaired health, vigour or productive capacity (TRANS 2001). The extent of the effect is determined by the amount of the release, the type of hydrocarbon (which will determine the residence time in the aquatic system) and the flow rate in the watercourse (which determines the extent of downstream transport). The ecological effects can range from direct fatality to organisms to persistence and progressive accumulation in sediments or biological tissues (bioaccumulation, biomagnification). Deformities, alterations in growth, reproductive success, and competitive abilities can result in some instances.

C-4

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the potential for erosion and sediment deposition during construction and operation of the Nosehill Creek Section in the event the contingency watercourse crossing methods are implemented:

• keep length of the construction period to a minimum, if required; • the planned instream trenching will be done during the low flow season; • regulate drainage from construction areas to prevent erosion and sedimentation; • ensure ditch water is adequately filtered to remove sediments prior to discharge to a watercourse; • install temporary berms on approach slopes immediately following clearing and grading; • install temporary silt fences near the base of slopes; • install temporary silt fences in any location where run-off from the right-of-way may flow into a watercourse; • inspect and clean or replace silt fences on a regular basis, especially after heavy rainfall; • install permanent diversion berms and cross ditches, on disturbed steep approach slopes to divert surface water off the right-off-way; • where trench breakers are installed, place diversion berms immediately down slope of trench breakers; • ensure trench crown does not impede drainage or that a sunken trench does not act as a drainage ditch. All designs will be made with input from a geotechnical engineer; • install netting, mat binders, pegged sod or other products as warranted. Tackifiers should not be used on the approach slopes adjacent to watercourses; • revegetate with an approved seed mix, as soon as practical. Incorporate a cover crop seed (i.e., biannual fall rye, annual oats or barley) into mix as a cover crop. Note: Biannual fall rye should be incorporated for summer or fall seeding and annual oats for winter or spring seeding; • inspect erosion control structures until well established and stable, after major rainfalls and at least daily during periods of prolonged rainfall; • immediately repair erosion control structures that are found to be damaged; • store deleterious substances used in the operation and maintenance of equipment in approved containers, and store containers in a manner that protects them from puncturing and/or crushing; • provide segregated waste disposal containers for all general waste and properly dispose of such waste; • follow waste management procedures; • generators and pumps used for water intake should have secondary containment, when stationed, operated or refueled within 100 m of a watercourse; and • refueling within 100 m of the watercourse should be undertaken only with dual manual watch in place.

C-5

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

In addition to the above mitigation measures, a monitoring plan should be implemented to measure total suspended sediments (TSS) during construction. Prior to the start of Construction, the Contractor shall determine the normally occurring linear relationship between total suspended solids concentration and turbidity in the watercourse. At least 10 to 15 samples must be used to develop the relationship. The relationship will cover the entire range of turbidity expected during construction.

Residual Environmental Effects of Deleterious Substances

With the application of the measures outlined above, there will be sediment released during an open cut of the Athabasca River. Based on the existing information, it is difficult to accurately gauge the effects of sedimentation on habitat in the river. While studies have found some level of sedimentation occurred, they did not relate those changes to biological processes in the river to determine if fish habitat or productive capacity was affected. Mitigation measures will reduce, but not eliminate sediment in the Athabasca during a wet open cut crossing and compensation for the HADD will be required. The nature of compensation will need to be discussed with DFO prior to commencement of HDD operations.

C.3.1.1 Alteration of Fish Habitat

Environmental Effects

Alterations to fish habitat are limited to trenched crossings (either isolated or open cut), where construction activity takes place in and adjacent to active channels. Trenching through a stream channel disrupts the existing bed and banks within the RoW and may possibly result in a temporary or longer term degradation of habitat quality within the affected area (TRANS 2001). The extent of this effect is determined by physical factors such as channel width, flow characteristics, and substrate types. Another factor is the sensitivity of the aquatic habitats in relation to their importance to sustaining the resident aquatic biota. Sensitive habitat generally includes areas that are important for fish spawning or overwintering.

Trenched methods will alter the riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation serves to stabilize banks, providing filtration of overland flow from the surrounding land and also providing cover, cooling shade and food (e.g., terrestrial invertebrates) for fish. The Athabasca River has riparian vegetation that includes trees or shrubs overhanging the watercourse.

Within the RoW, the existing herbaceous riparian vegetation will be removed during construction of the pipeline. Watercourses often require extra workspace, which may also result in the temporary loss of riparian vegetation. This removal of vegetation may lead to an increase in sedimentation into the watercourse from the exposed soils and may promote erosion along the banks if the sites are not reclaimed properly. The effects last until riparian vegetation is re-established. Uncontrolled or chronic bank erosion and downstream sedimentation may degrade streambed habitats causing a loss of benthic invertebrate productive capacity.

Trenched crossings also involve some temporary blockage of watercourse flow. Open-cut crossings, particularly of larger streams with wide channels, can alter flow patterns and disrupt fish behavior (TRANS C-6

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

2001). Excessive restriction of flow by machinery or excavated spoil piles can also impede fish passage and affect migration.

Measures to Mitigate Alteration of Fish Habitat

Best management practices for erosion and sediment control are typically employed during all phases of instream or near-stream construction and reclamation. Trenched crossings result in a temporary disturbance of the habitat that is restored at the completion of construction. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential effects to fish habitat.

• A riparian buffer (minimal disturbance zone [MDZ]) of at least 25 m should be established on either side of the Athabasca River, and will be clearly marked and signed prior to the start of clearing activities. The RoW should be narrowed in these areas to the extent practical. Stripping and grading within the MDZ should be restricted to the extent required to allow access for crossing construction, excavation of the trench and installation of the pipeline. Disturbance inside the MDZ should be reduced to the extent practical (access is needed for clearing and construction crews); • maintain the MDZ, except where required to install the pipe or access the work area; • to the greatest extent practical, the ditch width should be restricted where riparian shrubs and trees exist; • drainage patterns including channel width and depth should be restored to match pre-disturbance conditions following construction; • Interim stabilization and final reclamation should be carried out at all crossings. Banks will be graded to stable slopes and covered with erosion control fabric or matting, as required to maintain their integrity; • Disturbed bank areas should be re-vegetated using native species and cover crops if required for erosion control. If there is insufficient time in the growing season remaining for the seeds to germinate, the site should be stabilized using erosion control fabrics and tackifier; • an aquatic biologist and/or technologist should be present during construction to monitor water quality and document compliance with project plans, commitments and approval conditions (e.g., sediment and erosion control); and • if DFO determines a Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat (HADD) is likely to occur, the Company should develop and implement a fish habitat compensation program.

Characterization of Residual Alteration of Fish Habitat

Habitat within the RoW will be disturbed as a result of trenching and backfilling operations. This disturbance will be temporary and will primarily affect the benthic invertebrate community, which is a food source for many of the fish in the river. It is expected that invertebrates will rapidly colonize the disturbed area and restore the productive capacity within two years. As this would be considered a HADD, compensation for this lost habitat will be required.

C-7

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

C.3.2 Cumulative Environmental Effects

Construction of the pipeline was determined to be the only activity with the potential to adversely affect water quality, fish habitat or fish mortality risk in the watercourses crossed by the Nosehill Creek Section. No other projects were found to have a direct overlap with the LAA during the proposed construction period and therefore cumulative effects are not likely to occur with any past, present or announced future projects.

C.3.3 Determination of Significance

The installation of the Nosehill Creek Section will result in a temporary disturbance to the bed and banks and potential degradation of water quality extending down river from the contingency crossing location on the Athabasca River and unnamed tributary. This effect is expected to last from 2 to 6 months and result in a small decrease in productive capacity within the overall river. With the appropriate mitigation measures and appropriate compensation for the HADD, these effects are anticipated to be not significant.

C.3.4 Monitoring

Detailed monitoring during construction is recommended at the contingency crossings to ensure the construction technique is functioning as required (see EPP). Environmental inspectors should monitor the contingency crossing to ensure that the stream gradient, channel width and depth remain within seasonal flow norms following installation of the pipeline. The level of monitoring will depend on the characteristics of the watercourses at the time of construction. Monitoring of reclamation measures should be undertaken after completion of construction until vegetation has become established and the risk of bank failure, slumping and sedimentation into the watercourse does not exceed what will occur naturally in the riparian zone.

Fish salvage should be conducted at the isolation contingency crossing of the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River. A fish collection permit will be required for the fish salvage and a report will be compiled and submitted to ASRD outlining the species captured and capture efficiency.

C.3.5 Summary of Residual Project and Cumulative Environmental Effects

With the application of the recommended mitigation measures, residual project effects and cumulative effects associated with implementation of the contingency crossings are predicted to be not significant.

C.3.6 References

Alberta Ministry of Transport Fish Habitat Manual October, 2001. (TRANS). 2001.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association. 2005. Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings, 3rd Edition. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants and Salmo Consulting Inc. Calgary, AB.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 1995. Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline.

C-8

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

Herbert and Merkins. 1961. The Effect of Suspended Mineral Solids on the Survival of Trout. Int. J. Air Water Pollut. 5: 46–55.

Newcombe, C.P., and Jensen, J.O.T. 1996. Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries: A Synthesis for Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Vol. 16, pp. 693-727.

Reid, S.M., and Anderson, P.G. 2002. Evaluation of Isolated Watercourse Crossings during Winter Construction along the Alliance Pipeline in Northern Alberta. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, Calgary, Alta., 9–13 September 2000. Edited by J.W. Goodrich-Mahoney, D. Mutrie, and C. Guild. Elsevier, Oxford. pp. 735–742.

Reid, S. S. Stoklosar, S. Metikosh and J. Evans. 2002. Effectiveness of Isolated Pipeline Crossing Techniques to Mitigate Sediment Impacts on Brook Trout Streams. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 37: 2, 473–488.

Reid, S., F. Ade and S. Metikosh. 2004. Sediment entrainment during pipeline water crossing construction: predictive models and crossing method comparison. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 3: 81–88.

Internet Sites

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2008. Pathways of Effects. Available at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/habitat/modernizing-moderniser/pathways-sequences/index_e.asp

Environment Canada. 2010a. Water Survey of Canada – Athabasca River near Windfall. Available at http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/graph- eng.cfm?station=07AE001&report=daily&year=2009

Environment Canada. 2010b. Water Survey of Canada – Archived Sediment Data. Available at http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/sedat/sedflo/index_e.cfm?cname=WEBfrmDailyReport_e.cfm

C.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

C.4.1 Key Issues and Interactions for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Key issues and interactions for the contingency crossing route are the same as those outlined in Section 7.7. The primary focus of the wildlife and wildlife habitat component is species of management concern (i.e., federally and/or provincially listed as being at risk, having timing and setback restrictions) and their habitats. The RAA of the preferred route encompasses the contingency crossing route for the Athabasca River.

Project surveys and historical data gathered through ACMIS and FWMIS databases, as well as through stakeholder consultation, show occurrences of grizzly bear, moose, elk, deer, and bald eagle within proximity to the contingency crossing location. If any wildlife species of management concern are encountered during the construction of the contingency crossing, mitigation measures in Table 9-1 and in

C-9

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011 the Wildlife Species of Management Concern Discovery Contingency Plan will be implemented as necessary, added to the Environmental Alignment Sheets and reported in a supplemental filing to the NEB.

C.4.2 Mitigation for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

If the contingency crossing is required for the Nosehill Creek Section, it should be timed to occur in the late fall/winter to avoid the sensitive spring/summer nesting, rearing, and migration period for most wildlife species.

In addition to the wildlife mitigation measures provided in Table 9-1 and in the EPP, the following additional mitigation measures are recommended to reduce any potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat with implementation of the contingency crossing:

• conduct additional wildlife surveys to confirm any species of management concern along the contingency route; • update the EPP and Environmental Alignment Sheets to show all wildlife features and associated mitigation required during construction and operations; • construct the contingency crossing during fall/winter to avoid direct effects to wildlife and reduce the risk of mortality to species of management concern; • no activity is permitted within a Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone from January 15th to April 30th (ASRD 2010), unless otherwise approved by ASRD; • use signage along RoW to clearly mark entry and exit to the Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone; • where practical minimize extra temporary workspace within the Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone; • to allow for ungulate passage across RoW, gaps for passage will be left in grubbing piles; • if the contingency crossing occurs during winter months snow plowing (if required) will be minimized. Breaks in snow berms created by plowing of access routes will be created by placing the berm on one side of the route with breaks at 100 metre intervals; • to the extent practical, reduce the amount of grading required to safely install the pipeline along the contingency route; • clearly identify all known wildlife features within 50 meter of the RoW to ensure no additional temporary work space is acquired in these areas; • educate construction workers on wildlife issues through daily tailgate meetings and as part of the overall inspection orientation; and • during operations, ensure all maintenance activities (including integrity management) are planned to meet regulatory timing setbacks and timing windows for all known locations of species of management concern along the contingency route, unless otherwise agreed to by ASRD.

C-10

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

With the application of above recommended mitigation measures and to those identified in the EPP, the findings of the ESA with respect to effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat remain unchanged and are predicted to be not significant.

C.4.3 Reference

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010. Recommended Land Use Guidelines: Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones. Available at: http://srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/WildlifeLandUseGuidelines/doc uments/WildlifeLandUse-KeyWildlifeBiodiversityZones-Dec03-2010.pdf

C.5 Vegetation and Wetlands

C.5.1 Key Issues and Interactions for Vegetation and Wetlands

Key issues and interactions for the contingency crossing route are the same as those outlined in Section 7.4. The primary focus of the vegetation and wetlands for the contingency crossing is the potential effects on old seral stage forests, rare plants, and rare plant communities.

C.5.2 Effect of Contingency Crossing on Vegetation Land Units

There will be no reduction in vegetation diversity in the LAA (See Table C4.1-1), as a result of the contingency crossing, as all native vegetation units remain, although some land units are slightly reduced due to clearing of the RoW required for installation of the pipe across the Athabasca River and approach slopes.

Table C5-1 Change in Area of Land Units as a Result of the Contingency Crossing in Comparison to the Local Assessment Area

Land Units Baseline Application Case Upland Ecosite Phases Area (Contingency) Area Difference Percent change (ha) (ha) (%) d1 Labrador tea/ 41.9 41.903 0.0 0.0 lodgepole pine-black spruce e1 low-bush cranberry/ 25.8 25.761 0.0 0.0 lodgepole pine e2 low-bush cranberry/ 52.6 52.627 0.0 0.0 aspen e3 low-bush cranberry/ 185.8 169.494 -16.3 -9.6 aspen-white spruce- lodgepole pine

C-11

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

Table C5-1 Change in Area of Land Units as a Result of the Contingency Crossing in Comparison to the Local Assessment Area (cont’d)

Land Units Baseline Application Case Upland Ecosite Phases Area (Contingency) Area Difference Percent change (ha) (ha) (%) e4 low-bush cranberry/ 25.3 25.336 0.0 0.0 white spruce g1 shrubby meadow 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Upland Subtotal 331.6 315.2 -16.3 -5.2 Wetland Classes STNN – wooded swamp 2.0 2.042 0.0 0.0 Wetland Subtotal 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Disturbance Land Units Workspace 0.0 24.7 24.7 0.0 RoW 0.0 6.5 6.5 0.0 Disturbed Land 8.4 7.5 -0.9 -12.5 Cutblock - shrubby 32.4 31.8 -0.6 -1.9 Industrial 49.7 37.9 -11.8 -31.0 Road 7.2 7.2 0.0 0.0 Disturbance Subtotal 97.7 115.5 17.8 15.4

C.5.3 Old seral stage Forests in the Local Assessment Area

The contingency crossing will result in a loss of 16 ha of old seral stage forest (225.7 ha) within the LAA compared to the baseline of 241.7 ha (see Table C5-2). This represents a 6.6% loss in mixed wood old seral stage, and <0.1 % of deciduous old seral stage. There is no reduction in confer old seral stage forest as a result of the contingency crossing. Project effects on old seral stage forest are negative in direction, local in extent, and low in magnitude. The pipeline RoW will be maintained to control shrubby and woody vegetation and therefore project effects on old seral stage forests are long term and irreversible. Overall project effects on old seral stage forests in the LAA are not significant.

C-12

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

Table C5-2 Project Effects at Application Case on Old Seral Stage Forests in the Local Assessment Area

Area at Application Area at Baseline in Case (Contingency) Local Assessment in the Local Difference in Percent Old seral stage Forest Type Area Assessment Area Area Change (ha) (ha) (ha) (%) Coniferous 16.4 16.4 0.0 0.0 Deciduous 51.7 51.7 0.0 <.01 Mixedwood 173.6 157.6 -16.0 -6.6 Total 241.7 225.7 -16.0 NA Potential effects on rare plants, rare ecological communities, and the introduction of non-native invasive species remain unchanged from those identified in Section 7.4 of the ESA.

C.5.4 Mitigation for Vegetation and Wetlands

Recommended mitigation measures to address potential effects of implementation of the contingency crossing on Vegetation and Wetlands are the same as those identified in the ESA. It is recommended that spring rare plant and rare ecological plant communities survey be completed on the PDA before construction. Depending on the results of these surveys additional mitigation may be required to protect rare plants and rare ecological communities.

C.6 Physical Environment and Soils

The findings of the ESA for the Physical Environment and Soils remain unchanged as a result of the implementation of the contingency crossing method. Mitigation applicable to the Physical Environment and soils remain unchanged and are detailed in the EPP.

C.7 Historical Resources.

The Athabasca River valley has well developed terraces and bedrock exposures, which have high potential for archaeological and palaeontological sites, respectively. Site file and database searches determined there are no previously recorded heritage resource sites within the project footprint and no previous heritage resource assessments have been completed. The potential for undiscovered heritage resources in the study area is considered low to moderate, and no further work or monitoring is recommended. NGTL is required by ACCS to abide by the Section 31 requirement of the Historical Resources Act and “shall forthwith notify the Minister” of any chance discovery of heritage resources during construction. TransCanada will provide the NEB with copies of all correspondence from ACCS and will comply with any additional requirements that may be issued by ACCS.

C-13

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix C: Contingency Crossing of the Athabasca River February 2011

C.8 Palaeontological Resources

The Athabasca River was assessed during the 2010 field program. The results and recommended mitigation measures for both the crossing are outlined in section. Known palaeontological sites will require excavation and documentation. Specific mitigation measures to protect palaeontological resources are documented in the EPP and shown on the Environmental Alignment Sheets. If the open cut contingency crossing is used, some bedrock will be disturbed along the river bed and along the southeast bank (lower terrace). The chance of impacts to palaeontological resources is considered low to moderate. If shell or plant beds are encountered during a potential open cut crossing, it is recommended that TransCanada bring in a palaeontologist to sample the fossil site. As palaeontological resources are protected and regulated under the Historical Resources Act of Alberta, any effects on palaeontological resource sites must be approved by the Minister of ACCS.

C.9 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

The findings of the ESA remain unchanged as a result of the implementation of the contingency crossing method. Mitigation applicable to TEK has been captured within each of the biophysical sections of the ESA and is applicable to the contingency crossing of the Athabasca River.

C.10 Traditional Use

The findings of the ESA remain unchanged as a result of the implementation of the contingency crossing method. Mitigation applicable to TLU has been captured within each of the biophysical sections of the ESA and are applicable to the contingency crossing of the Athabasca River

C.11 Socio-Economic Valued Ecosystem Components

The findings and mitigation for the following value socio-economic components remain unchanged from those identified in the ESA:

• Human Occupancy, Resource and Land-use, • Infrastructure and Services, and • Employment and Economy.

C.12 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects assessment for all VEC’s was not completed as there are no known or reasonably foreseeable projects that overlap the Nosehill Creek Section spatially or temporarily.

C.13 Summary of Residual Project and Cumulative Effects

With the application of the recommended mitigation measures, residual project effects associated with implementation of the contingency crossing are predicted to be not significant.

C-14

Grande Prairie Mainline Loop Nosehill Creek Section Appendix D: Environmental Protection Plan February 2011

APPENDIX D Environmental Protection Plan