Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain)

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CUTBANK RIVER LATERAL LOOP (BALD MOUNTAIN SECTION) PIPELINE PROJECT

August 2010 6922

Prepared for: Prepared by:

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of TERA Environmental Consultants TransCanada PipeLines Limited Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Calgary, Alberta Ph: 403-265-2885

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 58 of the NEB Act for authorization to construct and operate the proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) (the Project). The proposed 38 km long, 610 mm O.D. (NPS 24) Project will generally be constructed parallel to the existing Cutbank Lateral on the Alberta System located south of Grande Prairie, Alberta.

The Project parallels the existing Cutbank Lateral Pipeline right-of-way and Bald Mountain Road for approximately 88% of its length (33 km). The Project will require a 25 m wide construction right-of-way consisting of 12 m of existing right-of-way and 13 m of new permanent right-of-way when paralleling existing right-of-way or 25 m of new permanent right-of-way at other locations, as well as temporary workspace to be taken within adjacent pipeline rights-of-way where feasible. Design, construction and operation of the pipeline will be in compliance with all applicable codes, standards and regulations. Pending regulatory approval, construction is scheduled to commence in December 2010.

NGTL commissioned TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA) to prepare an Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment (ESA) having regard to the NEB Filing Manual, the Online Application System guidance and Section 16(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) for approval to construct and operate the proposed Project. This ESA will be included within the Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) Section 58 Application (Application). The following studies were conducted in summer 2010 to support this ESA (Appendices 1 through 7): an Early Summer Rare Plant Survey (TERA); an Aquatic Assessment (TERA); a Wetland Assessment (TERA); a Wildlife Habitat Assessment (TERA); and a Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) (TERA).

The proposed Project is located in a forested setting within the Regional Municipality of Greenview (MD 16). Lands traversed are 100% (38 km) Crown-owned and the proposed route lies entirely within the Green Area of Alberta.

Lands traversed on the Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) are 100% wooded (38 km). The nearest community to the proposed pipeline route is the Hamlet of Grovedale (approximately 14 km northeast). The nearest major centre to the proposed pipeline route is the City of Grande Prairie, located approximately 30 km northeast of the Project area. No residences lie within 1 km of the proposed right-of- way. The proposed pipeline route crosses Bald Mountain Creek, which is a Class C watercourse, 12 unnamed tributaries to Bald Mountain Creek, five unnamed tributaries to the Cutbank River and three wetlands.

Potential environmental concerns identified by this ESA include: issues relating to strippings conservation; soil erosion control; potential effects on downstream water quality; potential introduction and spread of weeds; potential increase in the spread of bark beetles; incremental loss of remnant native vegetation; and potential effects on wildlife. Watercourse and wetland crossings have been located and construction of the crossings has been planned in a manner which will minimize bank and slope instability, as well as the potential for future erosion. Specific environmental measures have been identified for watercourse and wetland crossing construction, and strippings handling. These measures, along with other protection measures designed to mitigate the potential environmental effects, are identified in the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) within Appendix 6 of this ESA and on the Environmental Alignment Sheet within Appendix 7 of this ESA.

The environmental effects associated with the proposed pipeline route are those that are routinely encountered during pipeline construction in a forested setting. The application of mitigative measures through a comprehensive environmental compliance strategy (environmental protection planning, environmental inspection and post-construction monitoring) will avoid, eliminate and/or minimize potential Project-related adverse effects. Any potential adverse residual effects and cumulative effects that may result from the proposed Project are anticipated to be not significant.

Page i

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview...... 1-1 1.2 Project Justification ...... 1-4 1.3 Regulatory Framework...... 1-4 1.4 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment ...... 1-4 1.5 Purpose of the Document ...... 1-6 1.6 Project Team...... 1-6 1.7 Concordance with the NEB Filing Manual ...... 1-7 1.8 Concordance with the CEA Act...... 1-10 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 2-1 2.1 Project Purpose...... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives to the Project ...... 2-1 2.3 Location of the Project ...... 2-1 2.4 Project Components...... 2-3 2.5 Construction...... 2-4 2.5.1 Pipeline Installation ...... 2-4 2.5.2 Inspection...... 2-5 2.5.3 Estimated Workforce Requirements ...... 2-5 2.5.4 Environmental Permits/Approvals...... 2-5 2.5.5 Construction Schedule...... 2-6 2.6 Operation and Maintenance...... 2-6 2.7 Decommissioning and Abandonment ...... 2-7 3.0 COMMUNITY and REGULATORY consultation AND ABORIGINAL engagement...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Consultation Objectives and Methods ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Consultation Objectives ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Methods ...... 3-1 3.2.3 Consultation and Engagement Outcomes ...... 3-1 4.0 ROUTE SELECTION ...... 4-1 4.1 Control Points...... 4-1 4.2 Routing Considerations...... 4-1 4.3 Proposed Pipeline Route ...... 4-1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING...... 5-1 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 6-1 6.1 Methodology...... 6-1 6.1.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries...... 6-2 6.1.2 Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements...... 6-5 6.1.3 Potential Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects...... 6-6 6.1.4 Mitigative and Enhancement Measures...... 6-6 6.1.5 Residual Effects ...... 6-6 6.1.6 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-6 6.2 Effects Assessment - Pipeline Construction and Operation ...... 6-8 6.2.1 Physical Environment ...... 6-8 6.2.2 Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-10 6.2.3 Vegetation...... 6-15

Page ii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity...... 6-22 6.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 6-28 6.2.6 Wetlands ...... 6-38 6.2.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-43 6.2.8 Species at Risk ...... 6-49 6.2.9 Air Quality...... 6-51 6.2.10 Acoustic Environment ...... 6-53 6.2.11 Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 6-54 6.2.12 Heritage Resources ...... 6-56 6.2.13 Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 6-57 6.2.14 Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 6-59 6.2.15 Human Health ...... 6-60 6.2.16 Infrastructure and Services ...... 6-63 6.2.17 Employment and Economy...... 6-66 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 6-68 6.3 Effects Assessment - Decommissioning and Abandonment ...... 6-75 6.4 Effects of the Environment on the Project ...... 6-75 6.4.1 Environmental Conditions Not Considered...... 6-75 6.4.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures...... 6-76 6.4.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects...... 6-77 6.4.4 Summary...... 6-79 6.5 Summary of Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment...... 6-79 6.5.1 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment...... 6-79 6.5.2 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project...... 6-80 7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT...... 7-1 7.1 Methodology...... 7-1 7.1.1 Identification of Adverse Residual Effects ...... 7-1 7.1.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries...... 7-1 7.1.3 Other Projects and Activities...... 7-2 7.1.4 Prediction of Cumulative Effects...... 7-7 7.1.5 Quantitative Analysis of the Land Disturbance in the Project Area ...... 7-7 7.1.6 Mitigative Measures ...... 7-9 7.1.7 Determination of Significance ...... 7-9 7.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment - Project Construction and Operation...... 7-9 7.2.1 Physical Environment ...... 7-9 7.2.2 Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 7-11 7.2.3 Vegetation...... 7-12 7.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity...... 7-15 7.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 7-17 7.2.6 Wetlands ...... 7-20 7.2.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 7-21 7.2.8 Species at Risk ...... 7-28 7.2.9 Air Quality...... 7-30 7.2.10 Acoustic Environment ...... 7-32 7.2.11 Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 7-33 7.2.12 Heritage Resources ...... 7-34 7.2.13 Traditional Land Use...... 7-35 7.2.14 Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 7-37

Page iii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

7.2.15 Human Health ...... 7-38 7.2.16 Infrastructure and Services ...... 7-40 7.2.17 Employment and Economy...... 7-41 7.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 7-43 7.3 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Cumulative Residual Effects of the Project ...... 7-45 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STRATEGY...... 8-1 8.1 Environmental Protection Plan...... 8-1 8.2 Environmental Orientation ...... 8-1 8.3 Environmental Inspection...... 8-1 8.4 Issue Monitoring...... 8-2 9.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING...... 9-1 9.1 Post-Construction Monitoring Program...... 9-1 9.1.1 Construction Right-of-Way Inspection ...... 9-1 9.1.2 Government Agency Consultation ...... 9-1 9.1.3 Vegetation Monitoring ...... 9-1 9.1.4 Operation and Maintenance Activities ...... 9-2 9.1.5 Documentation and Reporting ...... 9-2 9.2 Long-Term Compliance Strategy...... 9-2 10.0 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES...... 10-1 11.0 CONCLUSION ...... 11-1 12.0 REFERENCES...... 12-1 12.1 Personal Communications ...... 12-1 12.2 Literature Cited...... 12-1

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Early Summer Rare Plant Survey by TERA Environmental Consultants ...... A1-1 Appendix 2 Aquatic Assessment and Supplemental Aquatic Assessment by TERA Environmental Consultants ...... A2-1 Appendix 3 Wetland Assessment by TERA Environmental Consultants ...... A3-1 Appendix 4 Wildlife Habitat Assessment by TERA Environmental Consultants...... A4-1 Appendix 5 Historical Resources Impact Assessment by TERA Environmental Consultants ...... A5-1 Appendix 6 Environmental Protection Plan...... A6-1 Appendix 7 Environmental Alignment Sheets...... A7-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Regional Location of the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) ...... 1-3 Figure 6.1 Local and Regional Study Area Boundaries of the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section)...... 6-3 Figure 7.1 Known Proposed Developments in the Vicinity of the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) RSA...... 7-6 Figure 7.2 Existing Roadless Core Area Based on a 500 m Zone of Influence of the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) ...... 7-25 Figure 7.3 Existing Avian Forest Interior Area Based on a 200 m Zone of Influence of the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section)...... 7-26 Figure 8.1 Health, Safety and Environment Commitment Statement ...... 8-3

Page iv

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Concordance with Guide A - A.2 Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment of the NEB Filing Manual...... 1-7 Table 1.2 Concordance Table With the CEA Act...... 1-10 Table 2.1 Technical Details of the Proposed Project...... 2-3 Table 2.2 Environmental Permits Required for Construction of the Proposed Project...... 2-5 Table 2.3 Estimated Project Construction and Operation Schedule...... 2-6 Table 5.1 Summary of Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements and Considerations...... 5-1 Table 6.1 Evaluation of the Significance of Residual Effects - Environmental and Socio- Economic Assessment Criteria1...... 6-4 Table 6.2 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Physical Environment ...... 6-8 Table 6.3 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Proposed Pipeline on Physical Environment ...... 6-9 Table 6.4 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-11 Table 6.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Proposed Pipeline on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-13 Table 6.6 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Vegetation...... 6-16 Table 6.7 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Vegetation ...... 6-18 Table 6.8 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Water Quality and Quantity ...... 6-22 Table 6.9 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Water Quality and Quantity...... 6-26 Table 6.10 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Fish and Fish Habitat...... 6-29 Table 6.11 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 6-34 Table 6.12 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wetlands...... 6-39 Table 6.13 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wetlands ...... 6-41 Table 6.14 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-44 Table 6.15 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-47 Table 6.16 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Species at Risk ...... 6-50 Table 6.17 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Species at Risk ...... 6-51 Table 6.18 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Air Quality ...... 6-51 Table 6.19 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Proposed Pipeline on Air Quality ...... 6-52 Table 6.20 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Acoustic Environment...... 6-53 Table 6.21 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Proposed Pipeline on Acoustic Environment ...... 6-54 Table 6.22 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 6-54 Table 6.23 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Project on Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 6-55 Table 6.24 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Heritage Resources...... 6-56 Table 6.25 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipeline on Heritage Resources...... 6-57

Page v

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Table 6.26 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 6-58 Table 6.27 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipeline on Traditional Land and Resource Use...... 6-58 Table 6.28 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 6-59 Table 6.29 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipeline on Social and Cultural Well-Being...... 6-60 Table 6.30 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Human Health...... 6-61 Table 6.31 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Project on Human Health ...... 6-62 Table 6.32 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Infrastructure and Services...... 6-63 Table 6.33 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operations of the Pipeline on Infrastructure and Services ...... 6-64 Table 6.34 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Employment and Economy...... 6-66 Table 6.35 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project on Employment and Economy ...... 6-67 Table 6.36 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions During Pipeline Construction and Operation ...... 6-69 Table 6.37 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions During Construction and Operation of the Proposed Pipeline ...... 6-72 Table 6.38 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of the Environment on the Project...... 6-77 Table 6.39 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of the Envionment on the Construction and Operation of the Project...... 6-78 Table 7.1 Applications to the ERCB for Oil and Gas Development within the RSA ...... 7-3 Table 7.2 Land Use Features and Assumptions Used for the Quantitative Analysis ...... 7-7 Table 7.3 Existing and New Areal Disturbance in the LSA...... 7-8 Table 7.4 Existing and New Areal Disturbance in the RSA ...... 7-8 Table 7.5 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on the Physical Environment...... 7-10 Table 7.6 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on the Physical Environment ...... 7-10 Table 7.7 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Soil and Soil Productivity...... 7-11 Table 7.8 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 7-12 Table 7.9 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Vegetation ...... 7-12 Table 7.10 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Vegetation...... 7-15 Table 7.11 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Water Quality...... 7-15 Table 7.12 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Water Quality ...... 7-17 Table 7.13 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 7-18 Table 7.14 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Fish and Fish Habitat...... 7-19 Table 7.15 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Wetlands ...... 7-20 Table 7.16 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Wetlands ...... 7-21 Table 7.17 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat...... 7-22

Page vi

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Table 7.18 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 7-28 Table 7.19 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Species at Risk...... 7-29 Table 7.20 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Species at Risk ...... 7-29 Table 7.21 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Air Quality...... 7-30 Table 7.22 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Air Quality ...... 7-31 Table 7.23 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Acoustic Environment ...... 7-32 Table 7.24 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on the Acoustic Environment ...... 7-32 Table 7.25 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Human Occupancy and Resource Use...... 7-33 Table 7.26 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 7-34 Table 7.27 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Heritage Resources ...... 7-35 Table 7.28 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Heritage Resources ...... 7-35 Table 7.29 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Traditional Land Use ...... 7-36 Table 7.30 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Traditional Land Use...... 7-37 Table 7.31 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Social and Cultural Well-Being...... 7-37 Table 7.32 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 7-38 Table 7.33 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Human Health ...... 7-39 Table 7.34 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Human Health ...... 7-39 Table 7.35 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Infrastructure and Services ...... 7-40 Table 7.36 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Infrastructure and Services...... 7-41 Table 7.39 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Employment and Economy ...... 7-42 Table 7.38 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Employment and Economy...... 7-42 Table 7.39 Potential Cumulative Residual Effects and Mitigative Measures for the Proposed Project on Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 7-43 Table 7.40 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects of Identified Residual Effects for the Proposed Project on Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 7-45

LIST OF PLATES Plate 2-1 General aerial overview near KP 3. Note area dominated by deciduous forest with small areas of coniferous and mixedwood (June 19, 2010)...... 2-2 Plate 2-2 Aerial view where paralleling existing pipeline across Bald Mountain Creek at KP 4.5 (June 19, 2010)...... 2-2

Page vii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACCS Alberta Culture and Community Spirit ACIMS Alberta Conservation Information Management System AENV Alberta Environment AEPEA Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act ANHIC Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre Aquatera Aquatera Utilities Inc. asl above sea level ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development ATPR Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation AUC Alberta Utilities Commission AWN Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada BC British Columbia CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEA Canadian Environmental Assessment (applies to Act and Agency) CLI Canada Land Inventory cm centimetre(s) CN Canadian National Railway Company COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CSA Canadian Standards Association CWB Community Well Being CWS Canadian Wildlife Services DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EFR Environmental Field Report EMS Emergency Medical Services EPP Environmental Protection Plan ERCB Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board ERP Emergency Response Plan ESA Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment EUB Alberta Energy and Utilities Board FCSI Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory FMA Forest Management Agreement Footprint Footprint Study Area FWMIS Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System GHG greenhouse gas(es) ha hectares HADD harmful alteration, disruption or destruction HDD horizontal directional drill HRIA Historical Resources Impact Assessment HRV Historic Resource Value HS&E Health, Safety and Environment IMP Integrity Management Program KLCN Kelly Lake Cree Nation km kilometre(s) KP Kilometre Post LSA Local Study Area m metre(s) ML/d Mega Litres per day mm millimetre(s) MPB mountain pine beetle NEB National Energy Board NGO nongovernment organization NGTL NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. NRC Natural Resources Canada NWP Navigable Waters Protection NWPA Navigable Waters Protection Act NWWG National Wetland Working Group O.D. outside diameter

Page viii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

OAS Online Application System OPRs Onshore Pipeline Regulations OS Operational Statement PCM Program Post-Construction Monitoring Program RA Responsible Authority RAP restricted activity period RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police RSA Regional Study Area SARA Species at Risk Act TERA TERA Environmental Consultants the Project Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) TLU Traditional Land Use TPA registered trapping area TransCanada TransCanada PipeLines Limited TSS total suspended solids UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UWR Ungulate Winter Range WMU Wildlife Management Unit

Page ix

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 58 of the NEB Act for authorization to construct and operate the proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) (the Project). The proposed 38 km long, 610 mm O.D. (NPS 24) Project will generally be constructed parallel to the existing Cutbank Lateral on the Alberta System located south of Grande Prairie, Alberta.

The Project parallels the existing NGTL Cutbank Lateral Pipeline right-of-way and Bald Mountain Road for approximately 88% of its length (33 km). The Project will require a 25 m wide construction right-of-way consisting of 12 m of existing right-of-way and 13 m of new permanent right-of-way when paralleling existing right-of-way or 25 m of new permanent right-of-way at other locations, as well as temporary workspace to be taken within adjacent pipeline rights-of-way where feasible. Design, construction and operation of the pipeline will be in compliance with all applicable codes, standards and regulations. Pending regulatory approval, construction is scheduled to commence in December 2010.

The following field surveys were conducted to support the ESA and inform the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).

• An Early Summer Rare Plant Survey (including weed observations) was conducted by TERA with the assistance of participants from Kelly Lake Cree Nation and Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada. The survey was conducted from June 13 to June 25, 2010 and is included as Appendix 1 of the ESA.

• An Aquatic Assessment was completed by TERA with the assistance of participants from Kelly Lake Cree Nation from June 14 to June 21, 2010. However, additional aquatic work was required to address route revisions and was completed by TERA with the assistance from Horse Lake First Nation, Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Nose Creek Nation, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation and the Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society. The supplemental field work was conducted from July 7 to July 11, 2010. Both the original Aquatic Assessment and the Supplemental Aquatic Assessment are included as Appendix 2 of the ESA.

• A Wetland Assessment was conducted by TERA with the assistance of participants from Kelly Lake Cree Nation and Horse Lake First Nation. The assessment was conducted from June 21 to 24, 2010 and is included as Appendix 3 of the ESA.

• A Wildlife Habitat Assessment was conducted by TERA conducted with the assistance of participants from Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis, Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation and Aseniwuche Winewak Nation. The assessment was conducted from July 18 to 27, 2010 and is included as Appendix 4 of the ESA.

• TERA obtained an Archaeological Research Permit (Permit 10-114) and conducted a Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) for the proposed Project. The HRIA was conducted by TERA from June 26 to 29, 2010 (original route) and July 12 and 13, 2010 (revised route). No historical resources were identified in conflict with the proposed Project and, therefore, no further work was recommended. Clearance under the Historical Resources Act will be applied for in August 2010. The HRIA is included as Appendix 5 of the ESA.

Page 1-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

(approximately 14 km northeast). The nearest major centre to the proposed pipeline route is the City of Grande Prairie, located approximately 30 km northeast of the Project area. No residences lie within 1 km of the proposed right-of-way. The proposed pipeline route crosses Bald Mountain Creek, which is a Class C watercourse, 12 unnamed tributaries to Bald Mountain Creek, five unnamed tributaries to Cutbank River and three wetlands.

Page 1-2

RGE. 8 W6M RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 W6M

Wi ls o n La k e

Ca m I p b r oq 12-24-68-7 W6M e ll uo i C s C r r e !. e e k [KP 0 e W k 68 TWP. i l s o n C 40 r e ST e k a B l d M o u n ta in C re e k

!.KP 5

!. KP 10 TWP. 67 TWP.

S t o n y C r e e k

!. KP 15

k e e r C k n e i e a r t C n u d l o

M G

d l

a B !. KP 20 TWP. 66 TWP.

i g

o !. u P KP 25 n i n t t o a i C n r e C ek k r e e e C r e k ee p S t

!. KP 30 TWP. 65 TWP.

!. KP 35

r e

v KP 38 i !. R [ k n 6-2-65-7 W6M a t b Cu TWP. 64 TWP.

FIGURE 1.1 SCALE: 1: 125,000 Fort km St. John J J Peace River REGIONAL LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED 0 1 2 3 4 J Dawson Fairview Creek NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. (All Locations Approximate) J High Slave CUTBANK RIVER LATERAL LOOP Prairie J Lake J Grande (BALD MOUNTAIN SECTION) J Prairie August 2010 6922 Mapped JValleyview Area Fox Tie-In Location 40 DATA SOURCES: [ ST Highway JCreek Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2010 CNES, Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp; Grande Prince George J Cache Road Pipeline Routing: Midwest Survey 2010; J Edson Existing Pipeline: IHS Inc. 2010; J Proposed Pipeline Route Hinton Road: GeoBase® 2008; J Stream/River Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004, B R I T I S H Natural Resources Canada 2007. COLUMBIA ALBERTA Existing Pipeline Lake Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.

6922_Figure1.1_Regional_Location_Rev0.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

1.2 Project Justification The Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) is required to respond to requests for service to transport incremental supply from the northwest area of the Alberta System.

1.3 Regulatory Framework The Project requires NEB approval pursuant to Section 58 of the NEB Act. Application to the NEB involves the preparation and filing of an ESA in accordance with the NEB Filing Manual.

NGTL directed TERA to prepare this ESA having regard for the NEB Filing Manual, Online Application System (OAS) guidance, Section 16(1) of the CEA Act guidance provided by the CEA Agency and concerns identified through regulatory, stakeholder and public consultation.

NGTL understands that the NEB will play a lead role as a Responsible Authority (RA), with other departments and agencies designated as RAs under the CEA Act. The NEB, in consultation with other departments and agencies, will determine the scope of the Project and the factors to be assessed in the screening report. For this Application, the NEB Filing Manual guided the preparation of this ESA.

In addition to the above federal permits and approvals, several federal/provincial permits, approvals or authorizations are also anticipated to be required for the Project, including:

• clearance under the Alberta Historical Resources Act from Alberta Culture and Community Spirit (ACCS);

• permits required under appropriate sections of the Water Act and the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (AEPEA) for works in, or about a stream and purposes of hydrostatic testing; letter of advice or Authorization under Section 35 (2) and/or Section 32 of the Fisheries Act, as well as Notification to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) of Watercourse Crossings;

• determination of navigability for watercourses crossed under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA); and

• various other necessary Project permits.

A list of the principal permits, authorizations or notifications required for the Project is presented in Section 2.5.4 of this ESA.

1.4 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment This ESA considered the mandatory factors listed in Section 16(1) of the CEA Act, as well as the factors listed in the NEB Filing Manual, the OAS guidance and pertinent issues, and concerns identified through regulatory, stakeholder and public consultation.

Consideration of the following factors in the environmental assessment is mandatory under Section 16(1) of the CEA Act:

• the environmental effects of the Project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the Project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out;

• the significance of the above effects;

• comments from the public that are received in accordance with the CEA Act and its regulations;

Page 1-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

• measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental or socio-economic effects of the Project; and

• any other matter relevant to the screening report, such as the need for the Project and alternatives to the Project, that the RA may require to be considered.

The environmental assessment considers the potential effects of the Project on the environment within the context of defined spatial and temporal boundaries. These boundaries will vary with the issues and environmental elements or interactions to be considered, and will reflect:

• the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning and abandonment phases of the proposed physical works and/or physical activities;

• the natural variation of a population or ecological or socio-economic component;

• the timing of sensitive life cycle phases in relation to the scheduling of the proposed physical works and/or physical activities;

• the time required for an effect to become evident;

• the time required for a population or ecological or socio-economic component to recover from an effect and return to a pre-effect condition;

• the area directly affected by proposed physical works and/or physical activities; and

• the area within which a population or ecological or socio-economic component functions and within which a Project effect may be felt.

The spatial boundaries for this ESA considered one or more of the following study areas.

• A Footprint Study Area (Footprint) made up of the area directly disturbed by the Project construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., permanent right-of-way, temporary construction workspace, temporary stockpile sites, temporary staging areas and valve sites).

• A Local Study Area (LSA) that varies with the element being considered. The LSA is based on the zone-of-influence within which plants, animals and humans are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. For the biophysical elements and resource use related socio-economic elements, the LSA is defined as a 2 km wide band centred on the proposed pipeline route. The exception to this is air quality, which is defined as a 1 km wide band centred on the proposed pipeline route. For social elements (e.g., social and cultural well-being), local effects are related to specific communities considered in the socio-economic assessment.

• A Regional Study Area (RSA) that consists of the area extending beyond the LSA boundary. The project-specific boundary or the RSA is defined as a 20 km wide band centred over the proposed pipeline right-of-way, which encompasses Trapper Areas 2788 and 1337 as well as the general Bald Mountain Creek drainage basin. The RSA was modified (squared off) to assist with quantitative analysis for the ESA.

• A Provincial Area which extends beyond regional or administrative boundaries, but confined to Alberta (e.g., provincial permitting boundaries, etc.)

• An International Study Area was selected to address air quality concerns regarding greenhouse gases.

Section 6.1.1 provides a more detailed discussion on the spatial boundaries of the Project. Detailed field and desktop studies considered at a minimum, an approximate 100 m corridor centred on the proposed pipeline route, as well as known areas of extra temporary workspace. In the event an area of interest was identified (e.g., rare plant, wildlife nest) field crews expanded their survey into the LSA to identify the

Page 1-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 extent and distribution of the area of interest, and ensure a comprehensive assessment of the environmental characteristics of the proposed pipeline route.

The environmental assessment also considered cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other approved projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.

1.5 Purpose of the Document An ESA checklist of NEB Filing Manual requirements is provided at the end of this Section (Table 1.1). This ESA includes the following sections.

1.0 Introduction: Provides a description of the need and justification for the Project, background information pertaining to the Project, the regulatory framework and the purpose of the document.

2.0 Project Description: Provides a description of the Project components, schedule and costs.

3.0 Project Planning: Provides a description of the need for the Project, control points, and route and site selection process.

4.0 Government Consultation: Provides a summary of the consultation with federal, provincial and municipal government agencies, as well as key nongovernment organizations. This section also identifies any key environmental socio-economic issues raised during the consultation program. The consultation conducted in association with preparation of the ESA was designed to compliment the NGTL consultation program.

5.0 Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting: Provides a description of the current environmental and socio-economic conditions present along the proposed pipeline right-of-way.

6.0 Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment: Describes the effects assessment and identifies the potential environmental and socio-economic effects, recommended mitigation measures and predicted residual effects as well as an assessment of their significance.

7.0 Cumulative Effects Assessment: Provides a description of the potential cumulative effects as well as an assessment of their significance.

8.0 Environmental Compliance Strategy: Provides a description of the environmental inspection, education, issue tracking and monitoring policies to be applied during the construction and operation of the proposed Project.

9.0 Post-Construction Monitoring Program: Provides a description of the plans to assess the success of construction and reclamation activities and/or address any issues that have occurred after construction along the right-of-way.

10.0 Conclusion: Provides conclusions related to the significance of potential adverse residual environmental and cumulative effects associated with the Project.

1.6 Project Team This ESA report was prepared by TERA with the assistance of NGTL. Identified below are the companies responsible for the various supporting studies conducted for the Project.

NGTL Project Description Pipeline Route Selection

TERA ESA EPP Early Summer Rare Plant Survey Aquatics Assessment

Page 1-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Wetland Assessment Wildlife Habitat Assessment Historical Resources Impact Assessment

Supporting study reports are listed in the Table of Contents and, where available, are included as appendices to this ESA. These technical reports, surveys and studies provide an information base for the ESA. The authors of the supporting study reports also participated in the identification of potential effects and the development of mitigative measures within their respective disciplines.

1.7 Concordance with the NEB Filing Manual Table 1.1 of this ESA identifies where information requested in the NEB Filing Manual may be found in this ESA.

TABLE 1.1

CONCORDANCE WITH GUIDE A - A.2 ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE NEB FILING MANUAL

Filing Manual In Application? Not in Application? No. Filing Requirement References Explanation A.2.4 Description of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting Identify and describe the current biophysical and Section 5.0 of this ESA 1. • --- socio-economic setting. Describe and quantify the biophysical and • Section 5.0 of this ESA socio-economic elements in the study area which are --- of ecological, economic, or human importance. Determine which biophysical or socio-economic Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA 2. • --- elements require more detailed analysis. Detailed information related to biophysical or • Section 5.0 of this ESA and socio-economic elements from Tables A-4 and A-5, Appendices 1 through 7 of this ESA --- where applicable. Provide supporting evidence for information and data • Section 6.0 of this ESA, collected, analysis completed, conclusions reached Appendices 1 through 7 of this ESA 3. --- and for any professional judgment or experience provided in meeting these information requirements. Identify, describe and justify the methodology used for • Appendices 1 through 7 of this ESA 4. any surveys. Justification or plan for further surveys if --- season for a survey conducted was not optimal. A.2.5 Effects Assessment Identification and Analysis of Effects Identify potential effects associated with the proposed Section 6.0 of this ESA 1. • --- project. For those biophysical and socio-economic elements that require further analysis, describe, quantify and justify: • spatial and temporal boundaries for the effects • Section 6.0 of this ESA --- analysis of the biophysical or socio-economic element, or valued component, including how this 2. element could change from baseline over the life of the project; • local and regional conditions of the biophysical or • Section 6.0 of this ESA --- socio-economic element, or valued component; and • key receptors that could potentially be affected by • Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA --- the project and a change in the element of concern. An effects analysis of the project for each biophysical Section 6.0 of this ESA 3. • --- or socio-economic element, or valued component.

Page 1-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 1.1 Cont'd

Filing Manual In Application? Not in Application? No. Filing Requirement References Explanation Detailed information outlined in Tables A-4 and A-5 for Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA 4. • --- elements identified in Table A-3. Mitigation Measures Describe the general and specific mitigation measures • Sections 6.0 and 8.0 of this ESA, and their effectiveness to address the project-specific Appendices 6 and 7 of this ESA 1. --- effects, or clearly reference Sections of company manuals that provide mitigation measures. Describe how commitments regarding mitigative • Section 8.0 of this ESA, 2. measures will be communicated to field staff for Appendices 6 and 7 of this ESA --- implementation. Describe any plans or program that may be used to • Section 8.0 of this ESA, 3. --- mitigate potential effects. Appendices 6 and 7 of this ESA Evaluation of Significance Evaluate the likelihood and significance of residual Section 6.0 of this ESA 1. • --- adverse effects. Define the “significant effect” for each biophysical or Section 6.0 of this ESA 2. • --- socio-economic element, or valued component. Describe the methodology for determining whether the • Section 6.0 of this ESA 3. project is likely to cause significant adverse effects and --- justify conclusions. A.2.6 Cumulative Effects Assessment Scoping and Analysis of Cumulative Effects Identify potential effects for which residual effects are Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA 1. • --- also predicted in this ESA. For each biophysical or socio-economic element, or • Section 7.0 of this ESA valued component where residual effects have been identified, provide a description of the spatial and temporal boundaries used to assess the potential cumulative effects: 2. • Identify other projects and activities that have --- occurred or are likely to occur within the boundaries. • Identify whether those projects and activities will produce effects on the biophysical or socio-economic element, valued components within the identified boundaries. Provide a cumulative effects analysis of the proposed • Section 7.0 of this ESA project in combination with other projects and activities 3. --- for each biophysical or socio-economic element, or valued component. Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Effects Describe the general and specific mitigation measures • Section 7.0 of this ESA 1. that are technically and economically feasible to --- address the cumulative effects. Evaluation of Significance Evaluate the likelihood and significance of adverse Section 7.0 of this ESA 1. • --- residual cumulative effects. Define “significant cumulative effect” for each • Section 7.0 of this ESA 2. biophysical or socio-economic element, or valued --- component. Describe the methodology for determining whether the • Section 7.0 of this ESA 3. project is likely to cause significant cumulative effects --- and justify any conclusions. A.2.7 Inspection, Monitoring and Follow-up Describe plans to ensure compliance with biophysical Section 8.0 of this ESA 1. • --- and socio-economic commitments. Evaluate the need to monitor the elements potentially • Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of this ESA affected by the Project and if needed, describe the 2. environmental monitoring plan to be implemented --- during construction, reclamation, and operation of the Project.

Page 1-8

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 1.1 Cont'd

Filing Manual In Application? Not in Application? No. Filing Requirement References Explanation Where a project triggers the CEA Act, evaluate the • Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of this ESA need for element-specific follow-up programs to verify the accuracy of this ESA and to determine the 3. --- effectiveness of any mitigation measures that were implemented, particularly those mitigation measures that are new or unproven. Table A-3 Circumstances Triggering the Need for Detailed Biophysical and Socio-Economic Information Physical environment • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this --- ESA Soil and soil productivity • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Vegetation • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 and --- Appendices 1 of this ESA Water quality and quantity • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this --- ESA Fish and fish habitat • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 and --- Appendix 2 of this ESA Wetlands • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 as well as --- Appendix 3 of this ESA Wildlife and wildlife habitat • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 and --- Appendix 4 of this ESA Species at Risk or Species of Special Status and related habitat • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 as well as --- Appendices 1, 2 and 4 of this ESA Air quality • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this --- ESA Acoustic environment • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this --- ESA Human occupancy and resource use • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this --- ESA Heritage resources • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 as well as --- Appendix 5 of this ESA Traditional land and resource use • Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA --- Social and cultural well-being • Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA --- Human health • Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ESA --- Infrastructure and services • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this --- ESA Employment and economy • Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this --- ESA

Page 1-9

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

1.8 Concordance with the CEA Act Table 1.2 of this ESA identifies where information requested in the CEA Act may be found in this ESA.

TABLE 1.2

CONCORDANCE TABLE WITH THE CEA ACT

Section in CEA Act Requirement CEA Act Section of ESA The environmental effects of the project, including: • the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in s.16.1(a) Section 6.0 of this ESA connection with the project; • any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the s.16.1(a) Section 7.0 of this ESA 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) (which requires s.16.1(b) Section 7.0 of this ESA any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out); • comments from the public that are received in accordance with this Act and s.16.1(c) Section 3.0 of this ESA the regulations; • measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would s.16.1(d) Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project; ESA and Appendices 6 and 7 of this ESA • any other matter relevant to the screening, comprehensive study, mediation s.16.1(e) Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of this or assessment by a review panel, such as the need for the project and ESA alternatives to the project, that the responsible authority or, except in the case of a screening, the Minister after consulting with the responsible authority, may require to be considered; and • any other matter relevant to the screening, comprehensive study, mediation s.16.1(e) Section 2.0 of this ESA or assessment by a review panel, such as the need for the project and alternatives to the project, that the responsible authority or, except in the case of a screening, the Minister after consulting with the responsible authority, may require to be considered. Subsection 2(1) of CEA Act 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 residences of s.2(1) Section 5.0 and Section 6.0 and individuals of that species as defined in the Species at Risk Act (SARA); Appendix 4 of this ESA • health and socio-economic conditions; s.2(1) Section 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA • physical and cultural heritage, including effects on things archaeological, s.2(1) Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this palaeontological or architectural significance; ESA and Appendix 5 of this ESA • the current use of lands for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons; and s.2(1) Section 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA • any changes to the project that may be caused by the environment. s.2(1) Section 6.4 of this ESA

Page 1-10

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Purpose The purpose of the Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) is to transport sweet natural gas in a buried pipeline from a tie-in with an existing pipeline in 12-24-68-7 W6M to another tie-in with an existing pipeline in 6-2-65-7 W6M which is an interconnection point within the existing TransCanada Alberta System.

2.2 Alternatives to the Project Alternatives to the Project 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 Project. Since, as noted above, 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, NGTL evaluated whether alternative routes could meet the Project need and purpose. The route selection process for the Project is discussed in Section 4.0 of this ESA.

2.3 Location of the Project The proposed Project is located in a forested setting within the Regional Municipality of Greenview (MD 16). Lands traversed are 100% (38 km) Crown-owned and the proposed route lies entirely within the Green Area of Alberta.

Lands traversed on the Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) are 100% wooded (38 km). The nearest community to the proposed pipeline route is the Hamlet of Grovedale (approximately 14 km northeast). The nearest major centre to the proposed pipeline route is the City of Grande Prairie, located approximately 30 km northeast of the Project area. No residences lie within 1 km of the proposed right-of- way. The proposed pipeline route crosses Bald Mountain Creek, which is a Class C watercourse, 12 unnamed tributaries to Bald Mountain Creek, 5 unnamed tributaries to Cutbank River and 3 wetlands. The proposed Project will generally be constructed adjacent and parallel to the existing NGTL Cutbank Lateral and Bald Mountain Creek Road for approximately 88% of its length.

Consideration was given to alternative routes; however, paralleling and utilizing adjacent rights-of-way, where feasible, as temporary workspace was deemed preferable to minimize the disturbance to new land.

For ease of description, the proposed pipeline route is described using Kilometre Posts (KPs). The KPs follow the planned direction of construction, with construction on the Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) starting at a tie-in with an existing pipeline in 12-24-68-7 W6M (KP 0) and ending at the tie-in with another existing pipeline in 6-2-65-7 W6M (KP 38).

Typical lands encountered by the proposed pipeline route are shown in Plates 2-1 and 2-2.

Page 2-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Plate 2-1 General aerial overview near KP 3. Note area dominated by deciduous forest with small areas of coniferous and mixedwood (June 19, 2010).

Plate 2-2 Aerial view where paralleling existing pipeline across Bald Mountain Creek at KP 4.5 (June 19, 2010).

Page 2-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

2.4 Project Components The proposed location and technical details of the components of the Project are summarized in Table 2.1.

The total land Footprint required to construct the proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) is approximately 112.1 ha, of which approximately 76.7 ha is pipeline right-of-way and approximately 35.4 ha is temporary workspace.

Construction equipment will travel along the proposed right-of-way and access the route via existing access roads. No new permanent access will be required. Design, construction and operation of the pipeline will be in compliance with all applicable codes, standards and regulations. Pending regulatory approval, construction is scheduled to commence in December 2010.

TABLE 2.1

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Total Length: approximately 38 km Length Parallel to Existing Approximately 33 km (88%) Pipeline Right-of-Way and Road: Product: sweet natural gas Source Point: tie-in with existing pipeline in 12-24-68-7 W6M Delivery Point: tie-in with existing pipeline in 6-2-65-7 W6M Pipe Size: 610 mm O.D. (NPS 24) steel pipe Pipe Coatings: fusion bond epoxy, with external coating systems for abrasive conditions for watercourse, drainage features and road bores Construction Right-of-Way 25 m wide construction right-of-way is required, consisting of 12 m of existing right-of-way and 13 m of Width and Temporary new permanent right-of-way when paralleling existing right-of-way or 25 m new permanent right-of- Workspace: way at other locations. Temporary workspace will also be required at road, foreign pipeline, utility and drainage feature crossings, as well as at sharp sidebends and tie-ins. Aboveground Equipment: An aboveground valve will be installed at the tie-in with existing pipeline in 12-24-68-7 W6M as well as two underground valves and two aboveground operators. All of these components will be installed within the existing pipeline rights-of-way. In addition, an aboveground blow down valve and an underground valve will be installed tie-in with existing pipeline in 6-2-65-7 W6M as well as an additional underground valve with an aboveground operator will also be installed at the same site. Minimum Depth of Cover: 0.9 m Typical Trench Width: approximately 1.5 m Test Medium: water Construction Schedule: December 1, 2010 to April 1, 2011 Length of Construction: 16 to 18 weeks Expected Useful Life of over 40 years Pipeline:

Page 2-3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

2.5 Construction

2.5.1 Pipeline Installation The total length of pipeline to be installed for the Project is approximately 38 km. Pipeline construction will involve the following standard activities: engineering; construction surveying; clearing of vegetation; strippings salvage; grading (where warranted); stringing; bending and welding; trenching; lowering-in; backfilling; hydrostatic testing; clean-up/reclamation; and watercourse and wetland crossings. These activities are generally presented in the order of occurrence during construction.

Pipeline Construction Phase Associated Activities Engineering The pipeline will be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards and the Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPRs). Construction Survey Activities include line-of-sight flagging and staking of the boundaries of the construction right-of-way, temporary workspace as well as marking trench line and existing utilities. Avoidance areas will be appropriately fenced or flagged, where warranted. Clearing Vegetation (grasses, timber, stumps, brush and other woody vegetation) will be mowed and cleared from the construction right-of-way and extra temporary workspace. Grubbing may be required for the removal of woody vegetation where mowing is not feasible. Disposal Timber and brush disposal options will be subject to agreements with occupants and the Crown. Residual woody materials will be disposed of by burning unless otherwise directed by the NGTL Environmental Inspector/Construction Manager or ASRD. Strippings Salvage Strippings salvage will be conducted on all lands to promote successful reclamation and ensure it is returned to an equivalent land capability. Equipment used during strippings handling activities may include dozers, graders and/or backhoes. Grading (where warranted) Following strippings salvage, grading may be necessary on irregular ground surfaces (including temporary workspace), if necessary, to provide a safe work surface. Graders, backhoes and dozers may be used for this activity. Stringing and Welding The pipe will be bent, lined-up, welded, joint-coated and inspected prior to being lowered into the trench. Equipment used during stringing and welding activities includes pipe trucks, booms, pick-up trucks, and x-ray or ultrasonic inspection equipment mounted on pick-up trucks. Trenching The trench will be excavated using tracked excavators to a depth sufficient to ensure the depth of cover is in accordance or in excess of applicable codes. Minimum depth of cover will be approximately 0.9 m for forested lands. Lowering-In The pipe will be lowered into the trench using sideboom tractors. Trench dewatering may be necessary at certain locations during lowering-in (e.g., to ensure acceptable bedding for pipe, to prevent the pipe from floating or for performing tie-in welds). Backfilling Prior to backfilling, subsurface erosion control structures such as trench breakers will be installed, if warranted. The trench will be backfilled using backhoes, graders, dozers or specialized backfilling equipment. Backfill material will generally consist of native trench spoil material. Displaced subsoils will be crowned over the trench to compensate for settlement and any excess trench spoil will be feathered out over adjacent portions of the construction right-of-way. Testing All piping will be hydrostatically pressure tested and adhere to relevant provincial and federal regulations.

Page 2-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Pipeline Construction Phase Associated Activities Clean-up and Reclamation Upon completion of construction activities, clean-up and reclamation procedures will be initiated using dozers, backhoes and/or graders. Garbage or debris remaining onsite will be removed and disposed of in compliance with local regulations. The pipeline right-of-way will be graded to restore preconstruction contours, where practical. The proposed pipeline easement will be returned to a stable condition. The strippings will be replaced, with cross ditches and diversion berms installed on moderate and steep slopes to minimize the risk of erosion. All disturbed, upland areas will be seeded with an appropriate seed mix and special reclamation measures will be applied, where warranted. Watercourse and Wetland Bald Mountain Creek, which is a Class C watercourse may be horizontally Crossings directionally drilled, otherwise, along with the other watercourses and wetlands, it will be isolated or open cut (12 unnamed tributaries to Bald Mountain Creek, five unnamed tributaries to Cutbank River and three wetlands).

Permanent aboveground piping for the Project is limited to valves located at the tie-in locations on the existing pipelines in 12-24-68-7 W6M and 6-2-65-7 W6M. All Project components will be installed within the proposed pipeline right-of-way boundaries.

2.5.2 Inspection NGTL will retain the services of a qualified Environmental Inspector for the duration of construction (Section 8.0 of this ESA). The Environmental Inspector will monitor construction activities and ensure the implementation of protection measures outlined in NGTL's documentation, including the EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA) and the Environmental Alignment Sheet (Appendix 7 of this ESA) developed for the Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section).

2.5.3 Estimated Workforce Requirements The construction of the proposed Project will involve a workforce of approximately 50 to 80 workers onsite at any given time for the duration of construction. The skills of the anticipated workforce will include heavy equipment operators, welders, labourers, teamsters, mechanics, foremen, surveyors, inspectors and field office support personnel. No new permanent, part-time or full-time jobs will be created directly by the Project.

2.5.4 Environmental Permits/Approvals The environmental permits and/or authorizations that are to be obtained prior to construction activities are outlined in Table 2.2.

TABLE 2.2

ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Agency Permit, Authorization and/or Notification FEDERAL NEB Environmental Screening Report (pursuant to the CEA Act) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Notification under the applicable Operational Statement (OS) or, if warranted, authorization under Section 35 (2) and 32 of the Fisheries Act Transport Canada Approval under Section 108(4 or 5) of the NEB Act or Section 5(1)(a) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) PROVINCIAL - ALBERTA Alberta Environment (AENV) Notice under the Code of Practice for Temporary Diversion of Water for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines Notice under the Code of Practice for Release of Hydrostatic Test Water from Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Gas Pipelines

Page 2-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Agency Permit, Authorization and/or Notification Notice under the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body Notice under the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings ACCS Historical Resources Act clearance - An HRIA was conducted and no historical resources were identified in conflict with the proposed Project. Therefore, no further work was recommended. Clearance under the Historical Resources Act will be applied for in August 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Environmental Field Report (EFR) to be filed with ASRD Development (ASRD)

2.5.5 Construction Schedule Pipeline construction activities are progressive commencing with survey and proposed right-of-way preparation, and continuing through pipe stringing, welding, pipe inspection, trenching, lowering-in, backfilling, clean-up and reclamation. These activities are performed sequentially and move along the construction right-of-way. The average duration crews will be working at a given location on the proposed right-of-way is approximately one month. Areas that will take longer are tie-in locations that are routinely completed last just before and immediately after testing. Certain late stage activities such as testing and final clean-up may be postponed until suitable weather and soil conditions occur. Construction activities are expected to occur over a 12 to 16 week period (see Table 2.3).

TABLE 2.3

ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION SCHEDULE

Major Activity Anticipated Commencement of Major Activity Estimated Duration of Major Activity Pipeline Construction December 2010 12 to 16 weeks Surveying December 2010 10 days Clearing/Mowing December 2010 12 days Grading (if required) December 2010 5 days Strippings Salvage January 2011 3 weeks Stringing and Welding January 2011 3 weeks Trenching February 2011 3 weeks Lowering-in February 2011 10 days Backfilling February 2011 3 weeks Testing March 2011 1 week Clean-up and Reclamation March 2011 / Summer 2011 2 weeks Operations April 2011 Life of facility Post-Construction Monitoring April 2012 to late summer 2012 Over the first and second complete growing seasons following construction Line Patrols May start as soon as summer 2012 Approximately every six months (twice per year by helicopter or fixed wing) In-Line Inspection There are no plans to conduct in-line inspection in 10+ year intervals the foreseeable future Vegetation/Weed Management --- As required Maintenance Digs --- Excavations only after smart pig run, or after suspected contact by a third-party Facility Inspections --- Valves inspected annually, not to exceed 18 months with cathodic protection test lead readings taken annually

2.6 Operation and Maintenance TransCanada operates the Alberta System pursuant to an Operating Agreement between TransCanada and NGTL. TransCanada applies corporate policies in its operations of the Alberta System that are common to TransCanada’s operation of other federally-regulated pipelines. For the Project, TransCanada will develop and implement a Post-Construction Monitoring Program (PCM Program) to assess the effectiveness of mitigation and reclamation measures on soils, vegetation, watercourses and wetlands disturbed during construction of the pipeline. TransCanada will conduct monitoring and prepare maintenance plans and quality assurance/control programs to address any potential adverse environmental effects.

Page 2-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TransCanada has systems in place to manage the safe operation and integrity of its existing facilities. These programs will be expanded to include the Project once it is completed. The new pipeline and facilities will have specific integrity management plans ensuring that the on-going requirements of this pipeline and facilities are met throughout their respective service lives. Internal inspection is an integral part of TransCanada's Integrity Management Program (IMP) and the proposed in-line inspection facilities will be designed to allow passage of various types of in-line inspection including cleaning tools, and high and low resolution in-line inspection tools.

TransCanada has Operation Procedures that describes how its pipelines are operated and maintained. The manual provides detailed information on rights-of-way maintenance including information on Alberta One-Call, aerial reconnaissance, pipeline crossings, road usage, pipeline signage, brush control and weed control. This manual will be expanded to include work completed for the Project.

2.7 Decommissioning and Abandonment The Project has been designed to have a useful life in excess of 40 years. 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. Any decommissioning or abandonment activities will require prior approval by the NEB and other applicable agencies.

Page 2-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

3.0 COMMUNITY AND REGULATORY CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT

3.1 Introduction TERA 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 Project 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 Project's plans and activities while receiving a clear understanding of how people may be affected by the Project. TERA 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 Project.

3.2 Consultation Objectives and Methods

3.2.1 Consultation Objectives The objectives of consultation were to:

• share information about the Project, the proponent and the regulatory process;

• to obtain feedback on the potential effects of the Project; and

• to obtain input from federal and provincial regulatory agencies on the Project 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 compliment the NGTL consultation program. 3.2.2 Methods A number of methods have been used to inform the public, obtain feedback and identify issues about the Project 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.

3.2.3 Consultation and Engagement Outcomes The results of the consultation and engagement have helped refine the ESA for the Project. With this information, NGTL identified issues, addressed concerns and responded to questions. Engagement has also provided communities and government with an understanding of the Project’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.

Page 3-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

4.0 ROUTE SELECTION

4.1 Control Points The primary routing control points for the proposed pipeline loop are identified as follows:

• Tie-in at existing pipeline (Source Control Point): 12-24-68-7 W6M • Tie-in at existing pipeline (Delivery Control Point): 6-2-65-7 W6M

4.2 Routing Considerations NTGL’s routing selection takes into consideration the constraints of the source and delivery control points as well as the following routing considerations:

• input from landowners, the public, Aboriginal communities, regulatory agencies and other stakeholders; • where practical, follow existing linear infrastructure (i.e., pipelines, railway, roads); • minimize length traversing environmentally sensitive areas such as protected, endangered or sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitat; • avoid wetlands, where feasible; • comply with applicable regulatory requirements; • avoid socially and culturally important areas such as parks, natural areas, Traditional Land Use (TLU) sites (Indian Reserves, historic sites, heritage sites, cemeteries, etc.); • follow or use existing clearings, where feasible; • consider construction costs and difficulty; • cross all highways and all season roads at right angles; • use the shortest route practical; and • minimize conflicts with existing land and resource uses.

The routing strategy was to install the pipeline parallel and adjacent to existing pipeline rights-of-way, where feasible. As a result, 88% (approximately 33 km) of the proposed pipeline route parallels existing Bald Mountain Creek Road and the existing Cutbank Lateral Pipeline rights-of-way. Preliminary route options were reviewed by aerial and ground reconnaissance in the summer 2010 involving survey, construction, environmental and Project management personnel. NGTL's preferred routing was initially evaluated by TERA using air photo interpretation, topographic maps, a review of supplemental resource information and the routing factors listed above. Ground reconnaissances were conducted by TERA during summer 2010 in conjunction with the supporting study surveys. The route reconnaissance teams considered the constraints of the source and delivery points as well as the routing considerations noted above to assess the route. No route realignments were required due to environmental concerns.

4.3 Proposed Pipeline Route The proposed pipeline route is shown at a scale of 1:50,000 (Figure 1.1) and on the Environmental Alignment Sheet at a scale of 1:30,000. The proposed pipeline route is approximately 38 km in length and parallels existing pipeline rights-of-way and road for 88% (approximately 33 km) of its length. Approximately 4.5 km (12%) of new right-of-way will be required. Aboveground facilities required for this pipeline loop will be installed within existing pipeline rights-of-way.

Page 4-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING Table 5.1 describes the environmental and socio-economic setting along the proposed pipeline route. In addition, select environmental information is provided on the Environmental Alignment Sheet. Information collected for the setting was obtained from existing literature, internet searches and personal communications, all of which are cited in Section 12.0 of this ESA. In addition, the results of the aquatics, wetland, rare plant, wildlife and heritage resource supporting studies are summarized in Table 5.1. Methodologies for the Early Summer Rare Plant Survey, Aquatic Assessment, Wetland Assessment, Wildlife Habitat Assessment and HRIA are included in Appendices 1 through 5 of this ESA, respectively.

TABLE 5.1

SUMMARY OF BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical Environment • The proposed route lies within the Wapiti Plains and Grande Cache Benchlands Sections of the Southern Alberta Uplands Physiographic Region (Pettapiece 1986). • The proposed route does not encounter any areas of permafrost (Natural Resources Canada [NRC] 2003a), ground instability (NRC 2007a, 2008, 2009a,) or flooding (NRC 2007b). • NRC has rated the risk of wind erosion in the Project area as low (NRC 2003b). • The proposed pipeline route lies in the vicinity of historic forest fire hotspots detected in 2005, 2006, 2007 (NRC 2009b). The forest fire danger rating for this area ranges from moderate to very high (NRC 2009c). • The Upper Cretaceous-aged Upper Wapiti Formation underlies the north half of the proposed route and the Paleocene and Upper Cretaceous-aged Scollard Formation underlies the south half of the proposed route (Hamilton et al. 1999). The Wapiti formation, of nonmarine origin, is characterized by grey feldspathic clayey sandstone, grey bentonitic mudstone and bentonite, and scattered coal beds. The Scollard Formation, of nonmarine origin, is characterized by grey feldspathic sandstone, dark grey bentonitic mudstone and thick coal beds. A drift thickness of 0-15 m has been reported throughout the entire Project area (Pawlowicz and Fenton 1995). • The proposed Project is located within the Central Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region and the Upper and Lower Foothills Subregions of the Foothills Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). For these subregions, the mean annual precipitation ranges from 478-632 mm and the mean annual temperature ranges from 0.2°C to 1.8°C. The number of frost-free days per year varies from 79 to 97 for these subregions (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • Topography along the proposed pipeline route includes undulating plains, some hummocky uplands and extensive low-lying peatlands. The landscape is characterized by mixedwood stands, aspen dominated in early stages and black spruce tamarack stands on peatlands. Land use in the Project area includes oil and gas, forestry and recreation. • The proposed route is located within the Peace Lowland Ecoregion of the Boreal Plains Ecozone. Historical land use in the ecoregion includes some oil and gas activity, forestry and hunting. About 45% of the ecoregion is farmland with the majority producing annual small grains and grasses (Environment Canada 2010a). • Lands traversed by the proposed pipeline route are 100% (38 km) Crown-owned in the Green Area of Alberta • The proposed pipeline route parallels the existing NGTL Cutbank Lateral Pipeline right-of-way and Bald Mountain Road for approximately 88% of its length (33.0 km). Where the proposed route varies from the existing Cutbank Lateral right-of-way, it generally parallels other linear disturbances including roads and other pipelines. • The proposed pipeline route does not encounter any contaminated sites listed on the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI) (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2010).

Page 5-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Soil and Soil Productivity • In the Central Mixedwood Subregion, mineral soils are predominantly gray Luvisols and many of the Luvisols are imperfectly-drained and gleyed, and Solonetzic intergrades are associated with some of the glaciolacustrine sediments. Mesisols are the dominant organic soils occurring under fens and bogs. Soils in the Upper Foothills Subregion are well to imperfectly-drained Brunisolic Gray Luvisols while Orthic Gray Luvisols are associated with moderately well-drained sites. In the Lower Foothills Subregion, Orthic Gray Luvisolic soils dominate on the medium and fine textured materials while the wetland organic deposits associated with poor to rich fens are mainly Mesisols, and include an approximately equal representation of Typic and Terric subgroups (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • Glaciolacustrine deposits comprise most of the soils encountered by the northern portion of the proposed route (Twps 67 and 68 W6M). The dominant soil group in this area is the Donnelly soil group which mainly consists of imperfectly-drained Gleyed Solonetzic Gray Luvisols developed on fine to very fine textured, slightly stony, stratified, lacustrotill deposits (Twardy and Corns 1980). • The southern portion of the route (Twps 65 and 66 W6M) is underlain primarily by Sedimentary Bedrock. Two soil groups have developed on these deposits, Copton and Torrens. Copton soils are a collection of Brunisolic and Luvisolic soils developed on medium to coarse textured sandstones. Soils of the Torrens group are Gray Luvisols developed on moderately fine to fine textured shale and siltstone deposits (Twardy and Corns 1980). • See Physical Environment for potential contaminated soil.

Page 5-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Vegetation • The proposed pipeline route is located within the Boreal Plains Ecozone (Environment Canada 2010a). The route also traverses the Central Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region and the Upper and Lower Foothills Subregions of the Foothills Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • The Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion is the largest Natural Subregion in Alberta and is characterized by upland forests and wetlands on level to gently undulating plains. Upland forests are a mosaic of aspen, mixedwood and white spruce. Common understory species include low-bush cranberry, prickly rose, green alder, Canada buffaloberry, hairy wild rye, bunchberry, wild sarsaparilla and dewberry. Jack pine stands occur on coarser materials. Wetlands are often extensive and dominated by black spruce fens and bogs (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • The Upper Foothills Natural Subregion is characterized by closed, conifer dominated, forests occurring on rolling to steeply sloping terrain. Forests in this Subregion are often dominated by lodgepole pine with black spruce and white spruce as minor components. Deciduous and mixedwood forests occur on southerly and westerly slopes often at lower elevations. The Upper Foothills subregion has a shorter, cooler, growing season than the adjacent Lower Foothills subregion. As a result, the communities in this Subregion are generally less diverse (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • Natural landscapes in the Lower Foothills Natural Subregion are characterized by rolling, till-covered plateaus forested by mesic, closed canopy mixed stands of aspen, lodgepole pine, white spruce and balsam poplar. Common understory species on mesic sites include green alder, low-bush cranberry, prickly rose, wild sarsaparilla, dewberry, fireweed and bluejoint (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • The proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop crosses Crown lands for 100% of its length. • There are no potential plant species listed for the Central Mixedwood, Upper Foothills and Lower Foothills Subregions that are designated under the Alberta Wildlife Act. No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants or rare ecological communities with a designation under the Alberta Wildlife Act are known from the Local Study Area (Alberta Conservation Information Management System [ACIMS] 2010a). • ACIMS identified one rare vascular plant (leafy pondweed) in 12-2-68-7 W6M, one rare nonvascular plant (bloody-heart lichen) in 9-6-65-7 W6M and one rare ecological community (aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla) in 8-12-67-7 W6M (ACIMS 2010a). • An Early Summer Rare Plant Survey was conducted along the proposed pipeline right-of-way during the period from June 13 to 25, 2010. A list of all species observed at the time of survey is provided in Appendix A. • No Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) or SARA-listed species were found during the vegetation survey. No species designated under the Alberta Wildlife Act were found during the survey. Six ACIMS-listed rare vascular plant species and one rare nonvascular plant species were observed during the rare plant survey along the proposed pipeline (dainty moonwort, S1; lance-leaved grape fern, S2; northern moonwort, S3; Maclosky's violet, S2S3; golden saxifrage, S3; conic liverwort, S2; ascending grape fern, S2). During the rare plant survey, one potential ACIMS-listed rare ecological community, an aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla community, was observed in SW 22-65-7 W6M. Further information will be collected from the area during the late summer 2010 survey to confirm the occurrence. • The moist and dry mixedwood forests are dominated by trembling aspen with subdominant species comprising white spruce, balsam poplar and lodgepole pine. Riparian areas are dominated by willow or alder species and were associated with seasonal drainages and Bald Mountain Creek. Two treed bogs are encountered along the proposed route. • One member from the Kelly Lake Cree Nation (KLCN) and one member from the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada (AWN) participated in the June 2010 rare plant survey. None of the rare plants identified were considered to be important for traditional purposes. Drainage features and slopes dominated by moist mixedwood forest frequently exhibited an understorey with moderate to high densities of devil's-club, a species identified by the KLCN as having medicinal properties and still used by elders in the community. The member from AWN identified cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum) as an important vegetable food source. • TERA recommends conducting a supplemental rare plant survey during the late summer of 2010 along route segments that were revised since completion of the early summer 2010 survey and segments that are in close proximity to rare plant populations observed. • The proposed pipeline route is located in the mountain pine beetle (MPB) Management Zones designated as a Leading Edge and Holding Zone (ASRD 2009a). ASRD defines the Leading Edge Zone as an area where beetle populations threaten to spread along the eastern slopes and eastward into the boreal forest and the Holding Zone as an area with significantly more infested trees and with larger infested patches (ASRD 2007a). The primary objective of the Leading Edge Zone is to reduce and maintain MPB populations while the main objective for the Holding Zone is to ensure that the MPB population remains constant from year to year. Since control is not feasible over the entire holding zone, some areas are identified as "inactive" areas where the annual control targets of 50-80% of priority sites with surviving beetle broods, are not applicable (ASRD 2007a). Trees infested with MPB were flagged for harvest in a cutblock located in SE 21-65-7 W6M at approximately KP 31.85.

Page 5-3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Vegetation • One noxious weed, tall buttercup, was observed along the proposed route in SW 23-67-7 W4M. No Prohibited (cont’d) Noxious weeds were observed. The abundance of weedy species along the proposed pipeline route is currently very low. • Detailed descriptions and locations of the vegetation communities and land uses encountered by the proposed pipeline are included in the Vegetation Survey in Appendix 1 and the Environmental Alignment Sheets in Appendix 7 of the ESA. Water Quality and Quantity • The proposed route is located in the Peace/Slave River Basin with watercourse crossings located in the Bald Mountain Creek and Cutbank River sub-basins (AENV 2009a). • The proposed pipeline route crosses Bald Mountain Creek as well as a number of its tributaries and tributaries to Cutbank River. Bald Mountain Creek is a tributary to the Wapiti River, which in turn flows into the Smoky River. Bald Mountain Creek originates from several small tributaries in west-central Alberta. • The headwaters of the Cutbank River originate along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains of west central Alberta. Downstream from its headwater reaches, the Cutbank River flows northeasterly before meeting the Smoky River, approximately 55 km southeast of the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta. • The Bald Mountain Creek sub-basin is not monitored by the Water Survey of Canada or AENV and consequently hydrological information is not available. The closest flow monitoring station to the Project area occurs on the Cutbank River near Grande Prairie (Station Number 07GB001) (Environment Canada 2010b, AENV 2010a). Although obvious differences in discharge volumes exist between the Bald Mountain Creek and the Cutbank River, it is expected that the timing of high and low flow periods within the two watercourses would be similar. Based on this assumption, it is expected that the annual high flow event typically occurs in Bald Mountain Creek in May. Through the summer and fall, flows gradually decline. The lowest flow occurs in the winter and early spring before the lowland areas and mountain snowpacks begin to melt. It should be noted that flows in the Cutbank River in spring 2010 were variable but generally remained within the lower and upper quartile for this time period (AENV 2010a). • An Aquatic Assessment was conducted by TERA along the proposed pipeline route from June 14 to 23, 2010 to identify watercourses crossed by the proposed route. TERA was notified of routing modifications, including an increase in route length, on July 6, 2010; therefore, a supplemental assessment was completed from July 7 to 11, 2010 to address new and realigned crossings (Appendix 2). • A total of 18 watercourse crossings are crossed by the proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop pipeline. The proposed Bald Mountain Creek crossing is located in 4-12-68-7 W6M. Bald Mountain Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries (i.e., within 12-15-66-6 W6M) are the only mapped watercourses to be crossed by the Project (AENV 2006). They are both designated as Class C watercourses, and each has an associated restricted activity period (RAP), to protect sensitive life history stages of fish from being negatively impacted by instream activities, extending from August 1 to July 15 (inclusive). The remaining 17 watercourses to be crossed are unmapped (AENV 2006); however, they all drain into a mapped Class C tributary and, consequently, they inherit a Class C designation (AENV 2000a,b). In addition, since each of the 17 unmapped watercourses are to be crossed less than 2 km upstream from either Bald Mountain Creek or the mapped unnamed tributary, they also each retain an August 1 to July 15 RAP (AENV 2000a,b). • A total of nine drainages with no defined bed and banks are also crossed by the proposed route. • An application for Navigable Waters Approval under Section 108 of the NEB Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act was submitted to Transport Canada for Bald Mountain Creek in June 2010. As a result of the shift in routing on July 6, 2010, a supplemental application for Approval was submitted to Transport Canada in late July 2010. No comments have been received on the application as of August 19, 2010. • Aboriginal community participants from Kelly Lake Cree Nation assisted during the June aquatic assessment and participants from Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Horse Lake First Nation, Duncan's First Nation, Nose Creek Nation, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation and Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society assisted during the supplemental July aquatic assessment. • There are approximately 17 groundwater wells located within an approximate 2 km radius of the proposed pipeline route. Usage of these wells is variable and includes domestic, industrial, stock and investigation (AENV 2010b). • There is one documented spring along the proposed route in 12-2-67-7 W6M (Borneuf 1983, AENV 1991). • The proposed pipeline route is not located in an agricultural area and, therefore, is not rated for surface and groundwater quality risk for contaminants or aquifer vulnerability (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2009a,b,c). • Mitigative measures for potential effects on well water quantity and quality, and wastewater disposal are outlined in the EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA).

Page 5-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Fish and Fish Habitat • TERA conducted an Aquatic Habitat Assessment from June 14 to 21, 2010 and again from July 7 to 11, 2010 as a supplemental aquatic assessment following modifications to the route since the first assessment was completed. The purpose of the assessments was to identify watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline route and assess potential fish habitat (see Appendix 2 of this ESA). • The proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop crosses 18 watercourses (including an alternate crossing of Bald Mountain Creek) with defined bed and banks. • The proposed crossing of Bald Mountain Creek (located in 4-12-68-7 W6M) and one of its unnamed tributaries in 12-15-66-6 W6M are defined under the AENV Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body as Class C watercourses with an August 1 to July 15 (RAP) (AENV 2000a,b, 2006). • There are 11 unmapped tributaries to Bald Mountain Creek crossed by the proposed route in 5-35-67-7 W6M, 16-27-67-7 W6M, 1-27-67-7 W6M, 1-22-67-7 W6M, 12-11-67-7 W6M, 3-22-66-7 W6M, 5-15-66-7 W6M, 4-15-66-7 W6M, 1-16-66-7 W6M and two unmapped tributaries are in 5-2-67-7 W6M. However, since they all drain into Bald Mountain Creek or the lone mapped unnamed tributary, they inherit a Class C designation (AENV 2000a,b). In addition, since each of the 11 unmapped watercourses are to be crossed less than 2 km upstream from either Bald Mountain Creek or the mapped unnamed tributary, they also each retain an August 1 to July 15 RAP (AENV 2000a,b). • There are five unmapped tributaries to Cutbank River crossed by the proposed route in 5-14-65-7 W6M, 4-14-65-7 W6M, 4-11-65-7 W6M and two unmapped tributaries in 13-2-65-7 W6M. However, since they all drain into a mapped Class C tributary and are crossed less than 2 km upstream from their confluence with this mapped tributary, they each inherit a Class C designation and August 1 to July 15 RAP (AENV 2000a). • No fish species at risk listed by COSEWIC are known or expected to occur within the Project area (COSEWIC 2010a). However, Arctic grayling populations in Alberta are high priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2010b). The following four fish species listed as 'sensitive' in Alberta (ASRD 2005) are or could be found in the sub-basin in, or near, the study area: bull trout; Arctic grayling; largescale sucker; and northern redbelly dace. • Fish were captured or observed in 2 of the 18 watercourses. Fish species captured included lake chub, trout- perch, longnose sucker, longnose dace, flathead chub, redsided shiner, finescale dace and brook stickleback. No sportfish were captured, nor were any northern redbelly dace or largescale sucker. • Although the planned winter construction of each crossing will coincide with the RAP of the watercourses to be crossed, no 'sensitive' species were captured in the vicinity of any of the proposed crossings and are not expected to be present at any of the proposed crossings during construction. It is, therefore, expected that instream construction methods could be conducted inside the RAP without negatively impacting the productive capacity of the aquatic environment, pending DFO's acceptance of these recommendations and provided the mitigation proposed is successfully implemented. • Aboriginal community participants from Kelly Lake Cree Nation assisted during the June aquatic assessment and participants from Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Horse Lake First Nation, Duncan's First Nation, Nose Creek Nation, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation and Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society assisted during the supplemental July aquatic assessment. • Mr. Hank Calliou (KLCN) indicated the Cutbank River (although not crossed by the Project) as the only waterway in the area which was likely to be actively fished using a pole and line. He indicated that while this river was identified as an important fishing area for the KLCN, the tributaries crossed by the pipeline route may have served as important land markers to direct people to the Cutbank River. • Arctic grayling were expected to be encountered in Bald Mountain Creek, but were not encountered during sampling. During the June and July assessments, Mr. Calliou and Ms. Shirley Letendre agreed that the quality of water in Bald Mountain Creek was poor. Ms. Letendre further indicated that only animals would drink from this watercourse.

Page 5-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wetlands • The proposed pipeline route is located within the Continental Mid-Boreal Wetland Region (National Wetland Working Group [NWWG] 1988). Boreal wetlands are characterized by coniferous forests and common wetland types including bogs and fens. In the Continental Mid-Boreal Wetland Region, characteristic wetlands are treed bogs and fens occurring on broad flats and in confined basins (Natural Regions Committee 2009). Floating fens and shore swamps may border lakes and ponds. Lodgepole pine may be present on drier, poorer sites and balsam poplar and black spruce are common on wetter, organic sites. Marshes can be found in agricultural areas and along edges of some streams and lakes. The climate varies from cold winters and warm summers in the west to mild winters and cooler summers in the east. Precipitation is high in the east and decreases gradually westward across the country. • Wetlands in the vicinity of the Project are predominantly peatland. Peat thickness within the region averages about 4 m thick. • Wetlands provide habitat for native plants and wildlife species, including nesting and foraging habitat for bird species and cover for ungulates. • There are no Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance along the proposed pipeline route (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2010). The Project route does not cross any Important Bird Areas (Canadian Nature Federation 2010) or Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (Canadian Wildlife Services [CWS] 2010). • A wetland reconnaissance was conducted on June 21 to 24, 2010 along the proposed pipeline route (see Appendix 3 of this ESA). • The pipeline route traverses three wetlands, which are identified as two treed bogs in NE/SE 11-68-7 W6M and SW 11-65-7 W6M and a marsh in SW/SE 22-65-7 W6M. The treed bogs traversed by the pipeline route are topographically isolated from the surrounding uplands and the surface water is predominantly derived from precipitation. Peat-accumulating marshes are naturally uncommon in the Project area, but can exist in areas that have been modified (e.g., beaver impoundments, drainage ditching, existing rights-of-way). • Field work was conducted with the assistance of representatives from Kelly Lake Cree Nation and Horse Lake First Nation. The Aboriginal community participants noted that the treed bog crossed by the proposed right-of- way in NE and SE 11-68-7 W6M showed signs of previous disturbance and two wetlands near KP 20.0 and KP 26.3 exhibited evidence of use by wildlife, including sign of beaver activity, ungulate tracks and scat, and observations of amphibians. Neither of these two locations will be crossed by the proposed route for the pipeline and, consequently, will not be affected by the Project. • NGTL plans to use an open cut crossing method to install the pipeline at the wetland crossings (see Appendix 6 of the ESA). • Additional information regarding the locations and classification of wetlands crossed by the proposed route is provided in Appendix 3 of this ESA.

Page 5-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • The proposed pipeline route traverses deciduous, mixedwood and coniferous forest communities typical of the Dry Mixedwood and Central Mixedwood subregions of the Boreal Forest Natural Region. The proposed pipeline route traverses several cutblocks in various stages of regeneration. • The proposed pipeline route is located in the Boreal Taiga Plains Bird Conservation Region (U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2010), and does not cross any Important Bird Areas (BirdLife International et al. 2010), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (CWS 2010), National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2010c), or Ducks Unlimited Projects (Ducks Unlimited Canada 2010). • The southern portion of the proposed pipeline route (approximately KP 32.5 to KP 37.8) is located within a Secondary Grizzly Bear Conservation Area which is noted as an area of good habitat that reflects the broader range of grizzly bears (ASRD 2008). Within this area, the proposed pipeline route parallels an existing pipeline corridor for its entire length. • The proposed pipeline route is not within a provincially identified Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) (ASRD 2007b). • The proposed pipeline route does not traverse any lands within a provincially identified Caribou Range (ASRD 2007b). The nearest caribou range is the West Central Caribou Range for the Redrock - Prairie Creek herd which is approximately 20 km southwest of KP 30.8 (ASRD 2007b, Dzus 2001). A search of the ASRD Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) online internet mapping tool reported an observation of a woodland caribou within 2 km of the pipeline route at KP 14.5 (NW 11-67-7 W6M) (FWMIS 2010). • There are no provincially identified trumpeter swan lakes within 800 m of the proposed pipeline route. The nearest trumpeter swan lake to the proposed pipeline route is Wilson Lake, located 7 km to the west of KP 0 (ASRD 2007b). • The proposed pipeline route does not traverse any Environmentally Significant Areas or Parks and Protected Areas (Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. 1996, Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation [ATPR] 2009a, 2010a). • A Wildlife Habitat Assessment was conducted along the proposed pipeline route during the period from June 18 to 27, 2010. Details of the Wildlife Habitat Assessment are presented in Appendix 4 of this ESA. • The survey focused on the detection of listed species with conservation status and the occurrence of suitable habitat to support these species (see Species at Risk or Species of Special Status). • Members from the Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis, Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation and Aseniwuche Winewak Nation participated in the wildlife survey in June 2010. Aboriginal participants had concerns about an existing borrow pit near KP 18.7 that was receiving high levels of wildlife use. The borrow pit is located outside of the proposed pipeline right-of-way. Aboriginal participants identified two grizzly bear rub trees and a heavily used game trail near KP 22.7, and considered these as important habitat features. Species at Risk or Species of • There are no potential plant species listed for the Central Mixedwood, Upper Foothills and Lower Foothills Special Status and Related Subregions that have a SARA or COSEWIC designation. No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants or Habitat rare ecological communities with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from the LSA (ACIMS 2010a). ACIMS identified one rare vascular plant (leafy pondweed) in 12-2-68-7 W6M, one rare nonvascular plant (bloody-heart lichen) in 9-6-65-7 W6M and one rare ecological community (aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla) in 8-12-67-7 W6M (ACIMS 2010a). • No COSEWIC or SARA-listed species were found during the vegetation survey in June 2010. • Based on the literature reviewed, olive-sided flycatcher (listed as Threatened), western toad (listed as Special Concern), common nighthawk (listed as Threatened) and rusty blackbird (listed as Special Concern) are Schedule 1 SARA-listed wildlife species with known ranges and habitat that overlap the LSA (ACIMS 2010b). • There are two wildlife species listed by COSEWIC with known ranges that over lap the LSA: grizzly bear and wolverine (both listed as Special Concern) (COSEWIC 2010c). • There are two wildlife species that are classified provincially as either Critically Imperilled (red bat) Imperilled (Cape May warbler) that have the potential to occur in the Project area. • Of the species at risk with the potential to occur in the Project area, observations or signs of grizzly bear and western toad were noted during the June 2010 survey. Air Quality • Factors affecting air quality in the Project area include emissions from the existing facilities and intermittent vehicle traffic exhaust. • There are no residences within 2 km of the proposed right-of-way. • A temporary increase in airborne emissions is anticipated during pipeline construction. However, provincial permits and reporting are not required for the proposed Project as per the Alberta Climate Change and Emissions Management Act Specific Gas Report Regulation (Alberta Regulation 251/2004) and the AENV Specified Gas Reporting Standard (AENV 2009b). Furthermore, nearby residences are not likely to be affected by nuisance air emissions resulting from pipeline construction. • The Project will not result in an increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance.

Page 5-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the Project area are from intermittent sources such as vehicle traffic and from the existing facilities located directly adjacent to the proposed route. • There are no residences within 2 km of the proposed right-of-way. A temporary increase in noise levels are anticipated during pipeline construction. • No local bylaws relating to noise have been established along the proposed pipeline route. • The Project will not result in increase in noise levels over existing levels during operation. • Noise arising from construction activities and the potential effects on wildlife are discussed under the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat element. Human Occupancy and • The Project route is located on Crown-owned lands in the Green Area of Alberta. The entire Project is located Resource Use within the Regional Municipality of Greenview (MD 16). • The nearest communities to the proposed pipeline route are the town of Wapiti (approximately 14.5 km) and the communities of Braaten (18.1 km), Grovedale (14.2 km), Dorscheid (24.7 km) and Beaverlodge (44.1 km). The nearest communities with services to the proposed Project include the City of Grande Prairie (approximately 29 km northeast of the route) and the Town of Grande Cache (approximately 70 km south of the route). • There are no operating coal mines or dispositions located in the Project area (Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board 2010, Alberta Energy 2010a). The proposed route does not traverse any metallic or industrial mineral dispositions (Alberta Energy 2010b). • There are no commercial and industrial areas located in the vicinity of the Project. • The proposed route does not traverse any controlled or managed forest areas (ATPR 2010a). • Given the scale of the proposed Project, very little or no interaction of the Project with local and regional human occupancy and resource development activities is expected. • There are no lands under Parks Canada’s jurisdiction, conservation areas, International Biological Program Sites or other ecological reserves or preserves in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline route (Parks Canada 2010, ATPR 2010b). • The proposed pipeline route does not traverse any Environmentally Significant Areas, existing or proposed provincial parks, recreation areas or Ecological Reserves (ATPR 2009a,b). • The proposed pipeline route lies within the Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 356 which includes general and archery big game hunting seasons for white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, elk and black bear (ASRD 2010a). The game birds hunted in these WMUs include male pheasants, ruffed and spruce grouse, blue grouse, sharp- tailed grouse, ptarmigan, grey partridge and waterfowl (ASRD 2010a). • The hunting seasons for white-tailed deer, mule deer and elk take place during the period from September 17 to November 30 with a moose season from September 24 to November 30, a fall black bear season from September 9 to November 30 and a spring black bear season from April 17 to July 15 (ASRD 2010a). The hunting season for male pheasants takes place during the period from September 1 to October 31 and the season for ruffed and spruce grouse, blue grouse, sharp-tailed grouse and gray partridge takes place from September 1 to November 30. For ptarmigan and waterfowl, the hunting season extends from September 1 to December 15 and 16 (ptarmigan and waterfowl, respectively) (ASRD 2010a). • Currently, nine guide outfitters hold licenses within WMU 356 for black bear, elk, mule deer, moose, white-tailed deer and waterfowl (Nelson pers. comm.). • The proposed pipeline route is located in Fur Management Zone 4 (ASRD 2009c). Furbearing species trapped in Fur Management Zone 4 include fisher, badger, beaver, lynx, otter and wolverine (ASRD 2009c). The proposed pipeline lies within two registered trapping areas (TPA 2788 and TPA 1337). • The proposed pipeline route is located within the Eastern Slopes (Zone 1) Smoky River Watershed Unit (ES4). Rivers and tributaries in the vicinity of the proposed route are closed to fishing from November 1 to May 31, with the exception of Sinclair Lake, which is open year-round (ASRD 2009b). The proposed route does not cross any sport or commercial fishing areas. • Recreational use of the lands in the vicinity of the proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop primarily occurs at Musreau Lake (in Twp 64 Rge 5 W6M) and Big Mountain Creek (in Twp 68 Rge 5 W6M) Provincial Recreation Areas. • Land and water-based transportation infrastructure is discussed in detail under Infrastructure and Services. • There are 17 groundwater wells located within an approximately 2 km radius of the proposed route (AENV 2010b). Usage of these wells is variable and includes industrial and domestic. • Potential surface or groundwater quality contaminants associated with the Project include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids, hydraulic fluids and antifreeze. Mitigative measures for potential effects on well water quantity and quantity, and wastewater disposal are outlined in the EPP (see Appendix 6 of the ESA).

Page 5-8

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Heritage Resources • The proposed development is located on lands listed as having no Historical Resource Values (HRV) for archaeological resources in the current Listing of Historic Resources (ACCS 2010). Results of a site file search found no previously-identified sites in proximity to the Project. The nearest previously recorded archaeological site measured over 2.5 km outside of the Project Footprint, and the nearest historical site measured at minimum 1.5 km outside the Project Footprint. • An HRIA was conducted for the Project in summer 2010 (see Appendix 5). No archaeological and/or historical sites will be affected by the proposed development. Therefore, the HRIA recommended that Historical Resources Act clearance be completed. • Clearance for the Project under the Historical Resources Act was granted by ACCS on March 23, 2010 • In accordance with provincial legislation, in the event that any historical, archaeological or palaeontological resources are discovered during construction, construction activity will be suspended until provincial authorities allow work to resume. • The potential for undiscovered heritage resources in the area is anticipated to be low. Traditional Land and Resource • In planning development projects, NGTL engages with Aboriginal communities that may be affected by a Use proposed development or that may have an interest in the development based on the proximity of their community and their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land. As per their standard practice, NGTL identified all Aboriginal communities who have identified that their traditional territory will be traversed by the proposed Project. In addition, NGTL consulted with ASRD to identify Aboriginal communities with potential traditional lands in the Project area. • Although no Indian Reserves are crossed by the proposed pipeline route, there are Aboriginal communities located in proximity to the proposed development. These communities may include, but are not limited to, the Horse Lake First Nation, Nose Creek First Nation, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation, Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Sturgeon Lake First Nation and Métis Zone Four. • Aboriginal community members from Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis, Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation and Aseniwuche Winewak Nation participated in the field assessments. No additional concerns with the Project were identified. Social and Cultural Well-being • In 2006, the City of Grande Prairie had a total population of 47,076 individuals with an Aboriginal identity population of 4,365. Approximately 70% of the population was between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population was 29.6 years old. The city has a workforce of 29,695 individuals with 16,770 males and 12,920 females. Top occupations include: trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations; sales and services; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2010). • In 2006, the Town of Beaverlodge had a total population of 2,264 individuals with an Aboriginal identity population of 60. Approximately 60% of the population was between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population was 35.0 years old. The city has a workforce of 1,755 individuals with 885 males and 865 females. Top occupations include trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations; sales and service; and management occupations (Statistics Canada 2010). • In 2006, the Town of Grande Cache had a total population of 3,783 individuals with an Aboriginal identity population of 310. Approximately 63% of the population was between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population was 36.9 years old. The town has a workforce of 2,025 individuals with 1,155 males and 870 females. Top occupations include: sales and service; trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2010). • In 2006, the Municipal District (M.D.) of Greenview had a population of 5,464 individuals with an Aboriginal identity of 630 people. Approximately 62% of the population is between 15 and 59 years old. The median age of the population is 38.7. The county has a workforce of 3,300 individuals. Top occupations include: occupations unique to a primary industry; trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations; and sales and service (Statistics Canada 2010). • In 2001, the Horse Lake First Nation Indian Reserve 152B had a total population of 340 individuals. Approximately 46% of the population was between 20 and 64 years old, which represents the second largest age demographic. The median age of the population was 19.3 years old. In 2001, participation rates in the labour force were 57.9% for males and 33.3% for females. The Community Well Being (CWB) index score for Horse Lake First Nation Indian Reserve 152B was 64 in 2001. The CWB was developed by the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's Research and Analysis Directorate as a means of measuring well-being in Canadian communities. It combines indications of income, education, labour force activity and housing conditions into a single score that may fall anywhere from 0 to 100, with 100 being the highest (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2010). • The primary potential source of socio-cultural effects on the local community that may be associated with the Project is an influx of temporary workers into the local communities. • A workforce of approximately 50 to 80 people over a period of 16 to 18 weeks will be required to construct the proposed Project. This incremental change to the local population is unlikely to place any undue pressures on municipal services, emergency services or local accommodations (see Infrastructure and services element of this table) during the construction period.

Page 5-9

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Health • Given the limited scope of the proposed Project and the short duration of construction activities, only nuisance-related health effects such as dust, smoke and noise are anticipated to be created by the proposed Project. The assessment of these effects is discussed under Air Quality and Acoustic Environment. • During pipeline construction, a temporary increase in airborne emissions and noise levels is anticipated. There are no residences within 2 km of the proposed pipeline route. The Project will not result in an increase in airborne emissions or noise levels during operations. • No public concerns related to the Project regarding human health effects have been raised.

Page 5-10

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and Services • Access to the proposed Project is via Highways 40 and 666, and M.D. of Greenview roads. Canadian National (CN) Railway generally parallels Highway 40 in the Project area (CN Railway 2010). • The nearest major airport is located in Grande Prairie, Alberta (YQU). • CN Railway has a railway line in the vicinity of the Project area with a major railway stop in Grande Prairie (CN Railway 2010). • Major trucking companies and Greyhound Canada provide ground transportation to nearby communities. • The City of Grande Prairie and Town of Grande Cache Alberta are the nearest major centres to the Project, and both provide all major services (City of Grande Prairie 2010, Town of Grande Cache 2010). Other nearby communities with services include the towns of Beaverlodge, Fox Creek and Valleyview, which provide accommodation, restaurants, groceries, post office, gas and diesel. The hamlets of Grovedale and Wapiti have limited services such as groceries, gas and post offices (Discover the Peace Country 2010). • Direct Energy Regulated Services and ATCO Electric / ATCO GAS supply electricity and natural gas to communities in the Project area (City of Grande Prairie 2010, ATCO Electric 2010, ATCO Gas 2010). • The City of Grande Prairie receives its drinking water from the Wapiti River and is treated by the Aquatera Utilities Inc. (Aquatera) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facility to produce potable water meeting AENV’s standards and the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. The design capacity of the facility is 18 Mega Litres/day (ML/d) average daily flow and 32 ML/d peak daily flow (Aquatera 2010). • The City of Grande Prairie's wastewater treatment system, wastewater collection mains and structures, and sanitary sewer services are owned and operated by Aquatera. Similarly, Aquatera owns and operates Grande Prairie’s Class II landfill site, located immediately south of the city, manages the garbage collection process and neighbourhood recycling depots (Aquatera 2010). • The nearest solid waste facilities to the Project area are the Grovedale Transfer Station located in SW 22-69-6 W6M and the South Wapiti Landfill Station located in S1/2 34-69-8 W6M. Both landfills are owned by the M.D. of Greenview (M.D. of Greenview 2010). • Accommodations in Grande Prairie includes hotels, inns and motels with a capacity of 11 to 200 rooms and also includes several large chain hotels/motels (Grande Prairie Regional Tourism Association 2010). Grande Cache has hotels, motels and inns (Town of Grande Cache, 2010) and the town of Beaverlodge has 3 motels and inns (Discover the Peace County 2010). • There are six campgrounds located between Grande Cache and the proposed route and twelve campgrounds in the Grande Prairie area, including campgrounds in Big Mountain Creek and Musreau Lake Provincial Recreational areas. The number of sites in these campgrounds ranges from 12 to 154 (Grande Prairie Regional Tourism Association 2010). • Big Mountain Creek Provincial Recreation Area is located approximately 15 km east of the proposed Project, and 10 km off Highway 40 (ATPR 2009b). This recreational area supports critical ungulate winter range as well as recreational activities such as group-use camping, hiking, fishing and snowmobiling. • Musreau Lake Provincial Recreation Area is located approximately 18.2 km southeast of the proposed Project (ATPR 2009b). This park is located within a secondary Grizzly Bear Conservation Area and a Provincial Environmentally Significant Area containing important riparian areas for trumpeter swan and brassy minnow (ATPR 2009a). This park boasts mature forests and a clear lake making it popular for recreational activities including camping, hiking, fishing, canoeing and power boating (ATPR 2009b). • NGTL has submitted to a request for a determination of navigability to Transport Canada. If Transport Canada determines a proposed watercourse crossing to be navigable, a Navigable Waters Protection (NWP) application will be submitted to Transport Canada. • Hospitals in the Project area include the Queen Elizabeth II Hospital in Grande Prairie (City of Grande Prairie 2010), the Beaverlodge Municipal Hospital and the Grande Cache Community Health Complex (Alberta Health Services 2010). Public health centres are located in Beaverlodge, Grande Prairie and Grande Cache (Alberta Health Services 2010). • Air and ground ambulance service is available through Grande Prairie Regional Emergency Medical Services (EMS). • Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachments can be found in Beaverlodge, Grande Prairie (City of Grande Prairie 2010), and Grande Cache (Town of Grande Cache 2010.) • Municipal fire departments are located in Beaverlodge (Town of Beaverlodge 2010), Grande Prairie (City of Grande Prairie 2010) and Grande Cache (Town of Grande Cache 2010). • Given the scope of the proposed Project, the associated incremental change to the local population is unlikely to place any undue pressures on local roadways, municipal services, emergency services or local accommodations during the construction period.

Page 5-11

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Biophysical and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Employment and Economy • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in the City of Grande Prairie were 80.8%, 3.6% and 77.9%, respectively, in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2010). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in the Town of Beaverlodge were 72.9%, 5.1% and 69.2%, respectively, in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2010). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in Grande Cache were 71.6%, 5.4% and 67.8%, respectively, in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2010). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in the M.D. of Greenview were 78.1%, 3.0% and 75.7%, respectively, in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2010). • Statistics Canada defines participation rate as the labour force in the week prior to Census Day, expressed as a percentage of the population 15 years and over excluding institutional residents (Statistics Canada 2010). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in the City of Grande Prairie includes: 13% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 19% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 11% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in the Town of Beaverlodge includes: 13% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 15% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 9% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in the Town of Grande Cache includes: 16% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 18% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 7% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010). • Education for individuals ages 15 and over in the M.D. of Greenview includes: 14% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 14% for college or non-university certificate or diploma and 4% for university degree, certificate or diploma (Statistics Canada 2010). • The most common occupations in the City of Grande Prairie are: trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations (24%); sales and services (23%); and business, finance, and administration occupations (15%) (Statistics Canada 2010). The most common occupations in the M.D. of Greenview are: occupations unique to the primary industry (27%), trades, transport, equipment operations and related occupations (23%); and business, finance, and administration occupations (14%) (Statistics Canada 2010). Consequently, both the City of Grande Prairie and the M.D. of Greenview have businesses that can provide labour services, equipment, supplies and other contracting needs for the proposed Project. • NGTL and its contractors focus on providing meaningful economic opportunities to individuals and established Aboriginal-owned businesses, including subcontracting and employment opportunities in both the new construction and the maintenance of existing facilities. • Qualified Aboriginal businesses within the Project area (band-owned and private businesses) will be given the opportunity to compete on an equal basis for available subcontracting work, provided they have the safety, financial and business capacity to take part in the Project. On occasion, NGTL or NGTL's prime contractors may negotiate a specific contract with an Aboriginal business depending on the number of businesses in the community that may provide that specific service, their work history with industry and the number of people they employ from the local community. • NGTL has been working collaboratively with Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis, Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation and Aseniwuche Winewak Nation to identify individuals and businesses that could potentially provide services to the Project. Where training is necessary in order for communities to take advantage of opportunities, NGTL, the prime contractor and the community will participate in the development and implementation of the necessary training. • Notice of potential employment opportunities is given to the business community and its members through newspaper ads and community meetings. During the community meetings, an NGTL contracting representative is made available to explain the opportunities and the process. NGTL may consider splitting or separating larger contracts in suitable work packages to accommodate more involvement without compromising safety. Where there are multiple businesses competing for similar contracts, a contractor meeting will be held and a competitive bidding and tendering process will be introduced; this will ensure fairness and transparency for all parties.

Page 5-12

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT The description of the environmental and socio-economic setting, and current state of the environment within the Project area (Section 5.0 of this ESA), are compared in this section against the Project Description (Section 2.0 of this ESA) to identify potential effects that might be caused by the Project. The environmental and socio-economic effects assessment uses the information provided in the environmental and socio-economic setting to:

• evaluate the environmental and socio-economic elements of importance in the Project area;

• identify and evaluate Project residual effects associated with each environmental and socio-economic element of importance;

• identify the effects of the environment on the Project; and

• formulate appropriate site-specific mitigation and, where warranted, enhancement measures that are technically and economically feasible.

In addition, the environmental and socio-economic effects assessment has determined the significance of potential residual effects resulting from construction and operation activities after taking into consideration proposed mitigation.

6.1 Methodology The assessment evaluated the environmental and socio-economic effects of the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment phases of each component of the Project. The assessment method included the following components:

• determination of spatial and temporal boundaries for this assessment;

• identification of environmental and socio-economic elements;

• identification of potential environmental and socio-economic effects;

• development of technically and economically feasible mitigation and enhancement measures;

• identification of anticipated residual effects; and

• determination of the significance of residual effects.

This Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment methodology has been developed based on the CEA Agency’s The Authority's Guide to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Agency 1994), the CEA Agency’s Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999), the CEA Act, Online Application System (OAS) guidance and the NEB Filing Manual.

Page 6-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.1.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries Spatial and temporal boundaries used to evaluate potential effects are defined below and in Table 6.1. The criteria used to determine significance are presented in Table 6.1 and Section 6.1.6.

Spatial Boundaries The spatial boundaries considered one or more of the following areas.

• A Footprint Study Area made up of the area directly disturbed by the Project construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., permanent right-of-way, temporary construction workspace, temporary log decks and valve sites).

• An LSA that varies with the element being considered. The LSA is based on the zone-of-influence within which plants, animals and humans are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. For the biophysical elements and resource use related socio-economic elements, the LSA is defined as a 2 km wide band centred on the proposed pipeline route. The exception to this is air quality, which is defined as a 1 km wide band centred on the proposed pipeline route. For social elements (e.g., social and cultural well-being), local effects are related to specific communities considered in the socio-economic assessment.

• An RSA that consists of the area extending beyond the LSA boundary. The project-specific boundary or the RSA is defined as a 20 km wide band centred over the proposed pipeline right-of-way, which encompasses Trapper Areas 2788 and 1337 as well as the general Bald Mountain Creek drainage basin. The RSA was modified (squared off) to assist with quantitative analysis for the ESA.

• A Provincial Area which extends beyond regional or administrative boundaries, but confined to BC (e.g., provincial permitting boundaries, etc.).

• An international Area which extends beyond provincial areas (i.e., global).

Detailed field and desktop studies considered, at a minimum, an approximate 100 m corridor centred on the proposed pipeline route, as well as known areas of extra temporary workspace. In the event an area of interest was identified (e.g., rare plant, wildlife nest), field crews expanded their survey into the LSA to identify the extent and distribution of the area of interest, and ensure a comprehensive assessment of the environmental characteristics of the proposed pipeline route.

The ecological boundary is described within the discussions of each applicable biological element. Spatial ecological boundaries were determined by the distribution, movement patterns and potential zones of interaction between an element and the Project. The ecological boundary may be limited to the Footprint (e.g., proposed pipeline construction right-of-way) or extend beyond the physical boundaries of the area of the Project component since the distribution or movement of an element can be local, regional or provincial in extent.

Temporal Boundaries The time frames used in the assessment of the Project included the planning, construction, operation, and decommissioning and abandonment phases (Table 6.1). The construction phase includes clearing, strippings salvage, grading, trenching, testing, and reclamation for the pipeline and associated facilities. Construction activities are assumed to begin Q4, 2010 and be completed by March 1, 2011. A detailed construction schedule for the Project is provided in Section 2.0 of this ESA. The operation phase was considered to commence following completion of construction in Q2, 2011 and extend an estimated 40+ years.

Page 6-2

RGE. 8 W6M RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 W6M TWP. 69 TWP.

W i l s o n La k e

C am p Ir b e o q 12-24-68-7 W6M ll u o i C s C r r !. e e 68 TWP. e k [ e W KP 0 k i l so n C ST40 re e k B a ld M o u n ta i n C r e e k

!.KP 5 Regional Study Area: 92505.0 ha

KP 10 67 TWP.

S t o n y C r e e k

!. KP 15

k e e Local Study Area: r C k n 7830.7 ha e i e a r t C n u d l o

M G

d l

B !. KP 20 TWP. 66 TWP.

i g

o !. u P KP 25 n i n t to a i C n r e e C k k r e e e C r e p k e e St

!. KP 30 TWP. 65 TWP.

!. KP 35

v KP 38 i !. R [ k n 6-2-65-7 W6M a t b C u TWP. 64 TWP.

FIGURE 6.1 SCALE: 1: 150,000 Fort km St. John J J Peace River LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES OF 0 1 2 3 4 J Dawson Fairview Creek THE PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. (All Locations Approximate) J High Slave CUTBANK RIVER LATERAL LOOP Prairie J Lake J Grande (BALD MOUNTAIN SECTION) J Prairie August 2010 6922 Mapped JValleyview Area Fox Tie-In Location 40 DATA SOURCES: [ ST Highway JCreek Local Study Area, Regional Study Area: TERA Environmental Consultants 2010; Grande Prince George Local Study Area J Cache Road Pipeline Routing: Midwest Survey 2010; J Edson Existing Pipeline: IHS Inc. 2010; J Regional Study Area Hinton Road: GeoBase® 2008; J Stream/River B R I T I S H Proposed Pipeline Route Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004, Natural Resources Canada 2007. COLUMBIA ALBERTA Existing Pipeline Lake Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 6922_CEA_Figure6.1_LSA_RSA_Rev0.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.1

EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS - ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA1

Assessment Criteria Definition SPATIAL CONTEXT - Location of Residual Effect Footprint A Footprint Study Area made up of the area directly disturbed by the Project construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., facility site, pipeline rights-of-way, access road, temporary construction workspace, temporary stockpile sites, temporary staging areas and valve sites). Local An LSA that varies with the element being considered. The LSA is based on the zone-of-influence within which plants, animals and humans are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. For the environmental elements and resource use related socio-economic elements, the LSA is defined as a 2 km wide band centred on the proposed pipeline route (Figure 6.1). For social elements (e.g., social and cultural well-being), local effects are related to specific communities considered in the socio-economic assessment. Region An RSA that consists of the area extending beyond the LSA boundary. The project-specific boundary or the RSA is defined as a 20 km wide band centred over the proposed pipeline right-of- way, which encompasses Trapper Areas 2788 and 1337. Province The area extending beyond regional or administrative boundaries, but confined to Alberta (e.g., provincial permitting boundaries, etc.). International The area extending beyond provincial boundaries (i.e., global). TEMPORAL CONTEXT Duration - Immediate Event duration is limited to less than or equal to two days. Environmental Short-term Event duration is longer than two days but less than or equal to one year. (period of the Medium- Event duration is longer than 1 year but less than or equal to 10 years. event causing term the effect) Long-term Event duration extends longer than 10 years. Duration – Short-term Occurs during the construction phase only. Socio- Long-term Lasting into the operations phase and beyond. economic (period of the event causing the effect) Frequency 2 Accidental Occurs rarely over assessment period. (how often Isolated Confined to specified phase of the assessment period. would the Occasional Occurs intermittently and sporadically over assessment period. event that Periodic Occurs intermittently but repeatedly over the assessment period. caused the effect occur) Continuous Occurs continually over the assessment period. Reversibility - Immediate Residual effect is alleviated in less than or equal to two days. Environmental Short-term Greater than two days and less than or equal to one year to reverse residual effect. (period of time Medium- Greater than one year and less than or equal to ten years to reverse residual effect. over which the term residual effect Long-term Greater than 10 years to reverse residual effects. extends) Permanent Residual effects are irreversible. Reversibility – Short-term Residual effect limited to the construction phase only. Socio- Medium- Residual effect extends into the first two years of the operation phase. economic term (period of time Long-term Residual effect extends throughout the remainder of the operation phase. over which the Permanent Residual effects are irreversible. residual effect extends) MAGNITUDE3 - of the Residual Effect Negligible Residual effects are not detectable. Low Potential residual effects are detectable, but well within environmental, social and/or regulatory standards or tolerance. Medium Potential residual effects are detectable and may approach, but are still within the environmental, social and/or regulatory standards or tolerance. High Potential residual effects are beyond environmental, social and/or regulatory standards or tolerance. PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE - Likelihood of Residual Effect High Likely Low Unlikely LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE4 - Degree of Certainty Related to Significance Evaluation Low Determination of significance based on incomplete understanding of cause-effect relationships and incomplete data pertinent to the Project area.

Page 6-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.1 Cont'd

Assessment Criteria Definition Moderate Determination of significance based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships using data from outside the Project area or incompletely understood cause-effect relationships using data pertinent to the Project area. High Determination of significance based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships and data pertinent to the Project area. Notes: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be mitigated or compensated. Significant Residual Socio-economic Effect: A residual socio-economic effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be: - high magnitude, high probability, short-term reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated; or - high magnitude, high probability, long-term reversibility and any geographic extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated. 2 The assessment period for the effects assessment includes planning, construction, operation, and decommissioning and abandonment phases for the Project while the assessment period for the cumulative effects assessment includes the above interval as well as the development, construction and operation phases of activities or projects that have previously occurred. 3 In consideration of magnitude, there is no environmental standard, guideline or objective for many of the construction/operation issues under evaluation. Therefore, the determination of magnitude of the adverse residual effect often entailed a historical consideration of the assessment of magnitude made by regulators, land authorities, lessees, other stakeholders and the assessment team to adverse effects. The assessment team was also aware of the increasingly stringent societal norms related to environmental effect. 4 Level of confidence was affected by availability of data, precedence, degree of scientific uncertainty or other factors beyond the control of the assessment team.

6.1.2 Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Potential environmental (i.e., biophysical) and socio-economic elements interacting with the Project were identified through experience gained during past construction programs with similar conditions, as well as the professional judgement of the assessment team. Issues noted during public consultation with federal, provincial and municipal government agencies, local industry representatives, interested stakeholders, Aboriginal communities and the general public were essential in determining element interactions with the Project (Section 3.0 of this ESA).

Environmental and socio-economic elements potentially interacting with the Project include:

• physical elements such as physical environment, soil and soil productivity, water quality and quantity, air quality and acoustic environment;

• biological elements such as fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk; and

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, traditional land use, social and cultural well-being, human health, infrastructure and services, and employment and economy.

Effects arising from potential accidents and malfunctions, and effects of the environment on the Project were also considered.

Page 6-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.1.3 Potential Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects The potential environmental and socio-economic effects resulting from the Project were identified through the public consultation with federal, provincial and municipal government agencies, local industry representatives, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal Engagement process, through experience gained during other construction programs in the area, as well as nearby areas with similar conditions, and through the professional judgement of the assessment team. The potential environmental and socio- economic effects arising from the proposed Project are identified in Section 6.2 of this ESA.

6.1.4 Mitigative and Enhancement Measures To ensure that potential adverse environmental and socio-economic effects are reduced and potential positive socio-economic effects are enhanced during pipeline and facility construction and operation, general and site-specific mitigative and enhancement measures have been recommended based upon current industry-accepted standards, consultation with federal, provincial and municipal government agencies, local industry representatives, interested stakeholders, First Nations and the professional judgement of the assessment team.

Mitigative and enhancement measures are outlined in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this ESA, as well as in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA).

Various federal and provincial regulatory agencies, and industry standards and guidelines (e.g., Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers [CAPP] 1993, 1996, 1999, 2003, 2005; CAPP et al. 2005; DFO 1995, 1999, 2003), as well as federal operational statements (DFO 2010) have been taken into consideration in this ESA. Accompanying this ESA are photomosaic Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 7 of this ESA) which identify where specific mitigative measures are to be implemented. Qualified Environmental Inspectors will be retained by NGTL to help ensure that the mitigative measures within this ESA are understood and properly implemented during construction. Environmental inspection is further described in Section 8.0 of this ESA.

6.1.5 Residual Effects Residual effects are the net environmental and socio-economic effects remaining following the implementation of mitigative and enhancement measures. In many situations, the recommended mitigative measures will completely mitigate the potential adverse effects while in other situations, the mitigative measures will lessen the effects, but not entirely eliminate them. Elements for which no effects are predicted require no further analysis.

6.1.6 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects The determination of significance of residual effects generally followed the guidelines and principles of the NEB Filing Manual, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (1994), and the CEA Agency’s Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999) and the CEA Act, OAS guidance. The agencies identify several possible methods for the determination of whether residual environmental or socio-economic effects are significant. These include:

• the use of established environmental standards, guidelines or objectives in relation to potential residual effects;

• the use of quantitative risk assessment;

• quantitative assessment of residual effects; and

• qualitative assessment of the residual effects.

Some elements can be assessed using the standards and guidelines method. However, only the qualitative method was considered to be the appropriate method of determining the significance of most

Page 6-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 anticipated residual effects due to a lack of established standards, guidelines or objectives. Consequently, the determination of significance was evaluated by developing a set of qualitative criteria based on those identified by Hegmann et al. (1999). These criteria are identified below and their definitions are presented in Table 6.1. In some cases, the definitions were modified to accommodate discipline-specific parameters. Ecological context is not included in Table 6.1. However, a discussion of the ecological context of potential environmental issues is provided for each applicable biological element.

• Spatial context (i.e., Footprint, LSA, RSA, Provincial).

• Temporal context (i.e., duration and frequency of the event causing the residual effect, reversibility of the residual effect).

• Ecological context (e.g., levels of existing disturbance, resilience of the receiving environment).

• Magnitude (i.e., severity of the residual effect in relation to environmental and/or social standards or tolerance).

• Level of confidence or uncertainty (i.e., availability of data to substantiate the assessment conclusion, previous success of mitigative measures, etc.).

• Probability or likelihood of occurrence of the residual effect.

For environmental elements, a significant residual effect has a high probability of occurrence, is permanent or reversible in the long-term and of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

For socio-economic elements, a residual effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be:

• high magnitude, short-term reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated;

• high magnitude, long-term reversibility and any geographic extent that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated; or

• medium magnitude, long-term reversibility or permanent (not reversible) and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

For each environmental and socio-economic residual effect, the effect balance or direction (i.e., determination as to whether the effect is positive or negative) was also established. A positive effect balance is considered to have a net benefit to the environment or socio-economic conditions. A neutral balance is defined as no net benefit or loss to the environment or socio-economic conditions, while a negative balance is considered to be a net loss or detriment to the environment or socio-economic conditions.

All significance assessment criteria (e.g., temporal context, magnitude, etc.) were considered by the assessment team for each residual environmental or socio-economic effect. Where appropriate, the key or most influential assessment criteria used to determine the significance of each residual effect are noted.

An evaluation of combined residual effects has been undertaken for those elements where more than one identified potential residual effect may occur at a particular location. The evaluation of the combined effects considers only those residual effects that are likely to occur (i.e., of high probability). A discussion of the combined effects has been included in the significance evaluation to provide further understanding of the overall effect of the Project on the element in question.

A summary of the significance evaluation for residual environmental and socio-economic effects arising from the construction and operation of the pipeline and associated pipeline facilities are identified in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this ESA.

Page 6-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2 Effects Assessment - Pipeline Construction and Operation Using the assessment methodology described in Section 6.1 of this ESA, the following subsections evaluate the potential environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline component of the Project.

The potential environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the pipeline, as well as the accompanying proposed mitigative and enhancement measures and resulting residual effects are presented in the following subsections for each environmental and socio-economic element as well as for accidents and malfunctions. In addition, the evaluation of significance using the criteria presented in Table 6.1 for the residual effects associated with the applicable environmental and socio-economic elements is also provided.

6.2.1 Physical Environment

6.2.1.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on the physical environment were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.2 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.2

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Localized rill Steep to Moderate Footprint • Recontour the construction right-of-way and • Localized erosion prior to Slopes on Construction restore the preconstruction grades and areas of rill re-establishment of Right-of-Way at drainage channels. erosion prior vegetation Watercourse and to the Drainage Crossings • Monitor the construction right-of-way as part of the PCM Program and report issues re-establishm related to erosion on slopes to applicable ent of NGTL's staff. NGTL will employ applicable vegetation. remedial measures on a timely basis and/or assess the need for on-going monitoring. 2. Minor instability in Trench Footprint • Restrict grading unless required for safety • Instabilities in fill materials considerations. fill material. • Backfill the trench in lifts and compact after each lift. • Recontour the right-of-way as close to the preconstruction profile as possible. • Monitor the trench during first spring break- up after construction. 3. Wildfire Construction Footprint to • Ensure appropriate and effective procedures • No residual Right-of-Way Region and materials are in place in the event of a effects wildfire during construction. Implement the anticipated. Fire Contingency Plan (Appendix 8E). See also Effects of the Environment on the Project in Section 6.5 of this ESA. • See Accidents and Malfunctions Table (Section 6.2.18 of the ESA) for discussion regarding potential fire caused by pipeline construction activities. • Note that a wildfire is not expected to affect the operation of the buried pipeline.

Page 6-8

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.2 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 4. Severe Weather Construction Footprint to • During wet/thawed conditions, implement the • No residual Right-of-Way Region Wet/Thawed Soils Contingency Plan effects (Appendix 8E) or suspend construction anticipated. activity. The decision to continue or halt particular construction activities on lands with excessively wet soils will be made by the Environmental Inspector in consultation with the Construction Manager. • In the event of adverse weather conditions, the Environmental Inspector in consultation with the third-party soils specialist, Construction Manager and regulatory personnel may implement contingency measures as outlined in the Adverse Weather Contingency Plan (Appendix 8E). • Consider weather conditions (e.g., snow pack conditions, timing and intensity of runoff and discharge within watercourses, amount of rainfall) when scheduling maintenance activities along the route. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.1.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.3 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on the physical environment. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below. An evaluation of significance is not required for those potential effects where no residual effect is identified (i.e., severe weather and wildfire). Effects of the environment on the pipeline (i.e., wildfire, floods and climate change) are discussed in Section 6.4 of this ESA. There are no combined effects to be assessed for the Physical Environment element.

TABLE 6.3

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Temporal Context

Duration Frequency Impact Balance Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Potential Residual Effects Reversibility a) Localized areas of rill erosion prior to negative footprint short-term isolated short-term low high high not re-establishment of vegetation. significant b) Instabilities in fill material. negative footprint short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Localized areas of rill erosion Construction activities that disturb soil will likely result in some minor surface erosion of surface soil material until a stable vegetative cover can be established. The recommended erosion control measures to address this issue are the industry-accepted standards and, consequently, are expected to reduce loss

Page 6-9

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 of surface soils resulting from erosion to minor levels. This residual effect is reversible in the short-term and is of magnitude (Table 6.3, point [a]).

Instabilities in fill material Fill material will be replaced during frozen conditions and, where warranted, compacted after each lift to minimize the risk of instabilities following the fill. This residual effect is reversible in the short-term and is of low magnitude (Table 6.3, point [b]).

6.2.1.3 Summary Based on Table 6.3, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on the physical environment of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on physical environment will be not significant.

6.2.2 Soil and Soil Productivity

6.2.2.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on soil and soil productivity were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.4 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

Page 6-10

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.4

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON SOIL AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Lowering of soil Entire route Footprint Strippings Salvage • Potential for mixing productivity • Salvage strippings where grading is required (surface of strippings and through mixing of organics and upper mineral soil) to a depth of 15-20 cm subsoil due to strippings with (Section 8.3) and using appropriate typical drawings as a salvage activities subsoil guide [Appendix 8D]. and during Stripping (General) trenching where strippings salvage • Remove or pack snow on the work side to increase frost did not occur. penetration into the soil. In mid to late winter, pack snow on the work side to avoid premature thawing of the upper soils [Section 8.3]. • Pack snow over the strippings and spoil storage areas prior to trenching to facilitate easy separation of spoil and strippings from the undisturbed surface material during backfilling and strippings replacement. • Limit removal of snow from the spoil side area. Excess snow that could interfere with backfilling operations is to be removed while an 8-10 cm buffer layer of snow is to be left in place to avoid strippings and subsoil mixing during backfilling [Section 8.3]. • Salvage strippings from areas to be graded and windrow to the closest edge of the proposed construction right-of-way. Avoid overstripping. The area stripped is to correspond to the areas graded [Section 8.3]. • Grade only where safety considerations dictate. No grading shall be permitted on level terrain [Section 8.3]. • Salvage a greater width of strippings at sharp sidebends and at crossings of watercourses, roads and foreign lines to accommodate a wider and deeper trench [Section 8.3]. • Maintain a sufficient separation between the base of a strippings pile and the base of a subsoil pile to ensure piles do not mix [Section 8.5]. • Grub roots using a brush rake to facilitate strippings salvage following stump removal in areas where grading is required [Section 8.2]. • Follow measures in the Traffic Control Management Plan to minimize the potential for strippings and subsoil mixing during salvage operations [Appendix 8F]. • Avoid mixing snow with spoil during backfilling [Section 8.6]. • Begin clean-up as soon as possible after backfilling and before spring break-up [Section 9.0]. Strippings Replacement • Replace strippings evenly over all portions of the proposed construction right-of-way that were stripped [Section 9.0]. • Postpone replacing strippings during wet conditions to prevent erosion and/or damaging soil structure [Section 9.0].

Page 6-11

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.4 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 2 Degradation of soil Construction right-of- Footprint • Confine traffic to the trench area and work side of the • Potential for minor structure and way proposed construction right-of-way to the extent practical to amount of lowering of soil reduce the area subjected to potential soil compaction. strippings/subsoil capability through mixing during compaction and • During wet/thawed conditions, implement the Wet/Thawed ripping of subsoil rutting Soil Contingency Plan [Appendix 8E]. to relieve Suspend all affected construction activity immediately upon • compaction. indication of wet or thawing soils. Resume construction activities only after soils have sufficiently dried or refrozen • Potential for minor [Section 4.0 of Appendix 8E]. amount of compaction Postpone heavy traffic until soils dry or refreeze if excessive • remaining following rutting is expected [Appendix 8E]. ripping of subsoil • Where construction has occurred during wet weather or to relieve thawed soil conditions that would result in subsoil compaction. compaction and the salvage of strippings has occurred, the • Potential for minor subsoil will be ripped to a sufficient depth to relieve amount of compaction [Section 9.0]. strippings/subsoil • Regrade areas with vehicle ruts, if rutting occurs [Section 9.0] mixing due to rutting. 3. Loss of strippings Construction right-of- Footprint to • Implement the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan, where • Minor surface or upper soil way Local warranted [Appendix 8E]. erosion of material through • Do not conduct salvage activities under extremely windy strippings can be wind or water conditions [Appendix 8E]. expected until a erosion vegetative cover If required, immediately following the removal of the • has been strippings, stabilize strippings stockpiles using either water or established. a suitable tackifier. Refer to the Soil Erosion Contingency Plan [Appendix 8E]. • During construction, should high winds or heavy rains damage the tackifier, the Environmental Inspector, in consultation with the Construction Manager, may implement contingency measures as outlined in the Adverse Weather Contingency Plan [Appendix 8E]. • Address post-construction loss of strippings prior to complete revegetation of the right-of-way. If erosion is noted, it will be addressed and re-seeding may be conducted. • Leave gaps in strippings windrow, if warranted, at obvious drainage courses, on sidehill terrain and wherever seepage occurs to accommodate surface runoff [Section 8.3]. • Install cross ditches and berms on moderately steep slopes in order to prevent runoff along the right-of-way and subsequent erosion [Section 8.5]. • Recontour cut slopes to a stable profile post-construction; maintain or re-establish surface and/or subsurface drainage patterns; install drainage and erosion controls such as berms, trench breakers and subdrains; armour streambanks where warranted [Section 9.0]. • Postpone replacement of strippings during wet weather or high winds [Section 9.0]. • To protect steep slopes from water erosion due to high, rapid storm events, construct berms and water diversion structures, and apply tackifier following seeding, where warranted [Section 9.0]. • Monitor the effectiveness of erosion control measures implemented during post-construction monitoring of the proposed construction right-of-way. Inspect areas of high erosion potential during regular aerial patrols. Undertake remedial work where warranted to protect pipeline integrity [Section 10.0]. 4. Trench subsidence Construction right-of- Footprint • Compact the backfill to minimize trench settlement using • Minor trench or a crown over the way suitable equipment along the trench line (e.g., grader) during subsidence or a trench nonfrozen conditions and as directed by the Environmental remnant crown Inspector. Take extra care to compact the trench at the banks over the trench. of watercourse crossings and intermittent drainages that have been trenched [Section 8.6].

Page 6-12

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.4 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 5. Loss of soil Construction right-of- Footprint • Ensure equipment is well-maintained and free of fluid leaks • Potential reduction productivity due to way [Section 6.1]. in soil productivity contamination • In the event of a spill, immediately implement measures to due to terrestrial stop, control the migration of, and clean up the spilled spills during substances as outlined in the Spill Contingency Plan (also construction and Accidents and Malfunctions element) [Section 1.0 of operation of the Appendix 8E]. pipeline. • The pipeline design, as well as preventative maintenance procedures will limit the potential for and volume of a product release in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture during operation. 6. Soil disturbance Entire route Footprint • Implement the recommended soil handling procedures • Potential for minor (e.g., maintenance outlined above in this table to minimize potential reduction in amount of subsoil dig activities) soil productivity when construction activities involving soil mixing due to poor during operation disturbance are required during operation of the pipeline. colour change • Maintain records of soil conditions (particularly undesirable between strippings subsoils (i.e., gravels, bedrock, large boulders, trench and subsoil. instability, contamination) encountered during construction of the Project for use during operation and maintenance activities. Make these records available to contractors and/or construction supervisors prior to commencing operation and maintenance activities to avoid potential effects related to reduced soil productivity as a result of encountering unexpected subsoil conditions (e.g., bedrock, strippings loss due to trench instability) [Section 6.5]. • Identify areas during the PCM Program that are susceptible to erosion or difficult to revegetate (e.g., due to thin depth of strippings), and maintain records of remedial measures implemented and the success of these measures. Ensure this information is available to construction contractors and supervisors prior to and during operation and maintenance activities to allow implementation of adaptive mitigation strategies to reduce effects on soil and soil productivity [Section 10.0]. • Monitor areas along the proposed route that are disturbed during operation and maintenance activities. Implement remedial measures where warranted [Section 10.0]. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.2.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.5 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on soil and soil productivity. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the above residual environmental effects is provided below.

TABLE 6.5

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ON SOIL AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

Temporal Context

Duration Frequency Impact Balance Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Potential Residual Effects Reversibility (a) Mixing of strippings and subsoil. negative footprint short-term isolated medium- low high high not term significant (b) Minor amount of strippings/subsoil mixing during negative footprint short-term occasion medium- low high high not ripping of subsoil to relieve compaction. Minor term significant amount of strippings/subsoil mixing due to rutting

Page 6-13

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Temporal Context

Duration Frequency Magnitude Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Impact Balance Balance Impact Context Spatial Potential Residual Effects Reversibility (c) Minor surface erosion of surface soil material can negative footprint short-term isolated short- low high high not be expected until a vegetative cover has been term significant established. (d) Minor trench subsidence or a remnant crown may negative footprint short-term isolated short- to low high high not occur. medium- significant term (e) Combined effects on soil productivity of the negative footprint short-term isolated medium- low to low high not residual effects of noted above in points (a), (b), (c) term medium significant and (d) occurring at a localized location. (f) Potential reduction in soil productivity due to negative footprint immediate to accidental short to low low moderate not terrestrial spills during construction and operation short-term long-term significant of the pipeline.

TABLE 6.5 Cont'd

Temporal Context

Duration Frequency Impact Balance Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Potential Residual Effects Reversibility (a) Mixing of strippings and subsoil. negative footprint short-term isolated medium- low high high not term significant (g) Potential effects on soil and soil productivity negative footprint short-term isolated short to low high high not resulting from activities during operation and to local long-term significant maintenance. Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Strippings and Subsoil Mixing During construction of the Project, it is likely that a minor amount of strippings/subsoil mixing will occur. With the implementation of mitigative measures outlined in Table 6.4 of this ESA, this residual effect is reversible in the medium-term and is of low magnitude (Table 6.5, points [a] and [b]).

Minor Surface Erosion Construction activities that disturb soil will likely result in some minor surface erosion of surface soil material until a stable vegetative cover can be established. The recommended erosion control measures to address this issue are the industry-accepted standards and, consequently, are expected to reduce loss of surface soils resulting from erosion to minor levels. This residual effect is reversible in the short to long- term and is of low magnitude (Table 6.5, point [c]).

Minor Trench Subsidence or Remnant Crown Construction activities may result in localized areas of trench subsidence and/or a remnant crown over the trench along the proposed pipeline route. Proposed industry-accepted standard mitigation includes ensuring backfill is compacted where appropriate, or crowned over the trench line to minimize trench settlement. This residual effect is confined to the Footprint, reversible in the short to medium-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.5, point [d].

Combined Effects for Points [a] through [d] The combined effects on soil productivity of these potential residual effects occurring at one location would be not significant due to the low probability of all the effects occurring at a particular location and

Page 6-14

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 the overall low magnitude of the potential effects which is based in part on the limited areal extent where the effects would occur (i.e., Footprint) (Table 6.5, point [e]).

Potential Reduction in Soil Productivity due to Spills Construction activities may result in a spill or leak. The pipeline design, as well as preventative maintenance procedures will limit the potential for and volume of a product release in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture during operation. This residual effect is confined to the Footprint, reversible in the short to long-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.5, point [f]).

Potential Effects on Soils due to Operation and Maintenance Construction activities may result in a reduction of soil productivity when construction activities involving soil disturbance are required during operation of the Project. With the implementation of mitigative measures outlined in Table 6.4 of this ESA, this residual effect is reversible in the short to long-term and is of low magnitude (Table 6.5, point [g]).

6.2.2.3 Summary Based on Table 6.5, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on soil and soil productivity of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on soil and soil productivity will be not significant.

6.2.3 Vegetation

6.2.3.1 Ecological Context The proposed pipeline route is located within the Boreal Plains Ecozone (Environment Canada 2010a) and traverses Crown owned lands only. The route also traverses the Central Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region and the Upper and Lower Foothills Subregions of the Foothills Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). The moist and dry mixedwood forests are dominated by trembling aspen with subdominant species comprising white spruce, balsam poplar and lodgepole pine. Riparian areas are dominated by willow or alder species and are associated with seasonal drainages and Bald Mountain Creek. Although some previous clearing has occurred for timber harvesting and oil and gas activities, forested areas remain over much of the lands traversed by the pipeline route.

The relationship of native vegetation with other ecosystem components is that it provides: protection of gene pools for future use; protection of native plant and wildlife species and their habitats; preservation of climax ecosystems and native biodiversity; and conservation of representative samples of different habitats characteristic of the region.

The route is adjacent to or utilizes disturbed habitat for approximately 88% of its length. Following construction, revegetation measures are planned to reclaim the lands affected by the proposed pipeline construction.

A Rare Plant Survey was conducted along the proposed pipeline right-of-way and is provided in Appendix 1 of this ESA. Six ACIMS-listed rare vascular plant species and one rare nonvascular plant species were observed during the rare plant survey along the proposed pipeline (dainty moonwort, S1; lance-leaved grape fern, S2; northern moonwort, S3; Maclosky's violet, S2S3; golden saxifrage, S3; conic liverwort, S2; ascending grape fern, S2). One potential ACIMS-listed rare ecological community, an aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla community, was observed in SW 22-65-7 W6M. One noxious weed occurrence, tall buttercup, was observed along the proposed route.

Page 6-15

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.3.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects on vegetation associated with the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline were identified by the KLCN, AWN First Nations and the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.6 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.6

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON VEGETATION

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Loss or alteration Construction right-of-way Footprint • The pipeline has been aligned to follow existing linear • Loss or alteration of of native disturbances as much as practical and the proposed native vegetation. vegetation construction right-of-way width kept to a minimum to minimize the loss of native vegetation to the maximum reasonable extent. • Schedule construction during frozen ground conditions. • Do not clear timber, stumps, brush and other vegetation beyond marked proposed construction right-of-way boundaries. • Ensure that lands with native vegetation are seeded with an appropriate native seed mix or left to naturally regenerate. Ensure seed mixes are free of noxious weed seeds. • To facilitate rapid regeneration, it is preferred that shrubs be mowed, rather than grubbed or wholly removed, if feasible. • To the extent possible and where appropriate, use matting or minimal stripping to avoid disturbance of ground layer vegetation. • Clean-up and reclamation should be completed following construction as soon as weather conditions permit. 2. Loss of vascular Construction right-of-way Footprint • Conduct additional field studies in the late summer 2010 • If mitigative plant species of along segments of the route that were revised since measures do not concern or rare completion of the early summer 2010 survey and segments completely protect ecological that are in close proximity to rare plant populations observed. the site, some loss communities • Implement one or more of the following mitigative measures or alteration of the (Appendix 1.0) in the event of a discovery of vascular plant local population of species of concern or rare ecological communities: concern may occur. - narrow down the proposed area of disturbance and clearly mark the site using temporary fencing or flagging to avoid accidental encroachment during construction; - realign the pipeline or change the work side in the immediate area of the vegetation to be protected; - bore under the local population on the Project Footprint and fence off the area to restrict traffic from impacting the site; - temporarily cover the site with geotextile pads or swamp mats and implement access restriction along the covered segments; and - propagate rare plants or transplant individual plants off the Project Footprint to equivalent habitat. • Monitor the effectiveness of mitigative efforts during the PCM Program. • In the event that a rare plant or rare ecological community is observed during preconstruction site preparation (e.g., clearing), implement the Rare Plant Discovery Contingency Plan [Section 9.0 of Appendix 8E].

Page 6-16

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 3. Weed introduction Construction right-of-way Footprint to • No restricted weeds were observed during the vegetation • Potential for weed Local survey. Clean all construction equipment prior to its arrival introduction and onsite in order to minimize the introduction and spread of spread. weeds (Section 8.1). • Prior to the start of construction, it may be desirable to manage weeds present along the construction right-of-way to prevent the setting of further seed, using the following recommendations, depending on the species and conditions present: - large areas of weeds may be mowed prior to seed maturation; and - any cuttings that are beginning to produce flower buds should be collected and burned, or hauled to an appropriate facility, in order that the seed does not mature and disperse onsite. • Ensure seed mixes used to revegetate disturbed areas are free of noxious weed seed. Use best available seed and retain the analysis certificate. • Weed growth on strippings piles will be monitored during the course of construction and corrective measures (e.g., spraying, mowing, hand-pulling) will be implemented when warranted. • If weed infestations are noted during late summer 2010 supplemental surveys, they will be flagged prior to commencement of site preparation (i.e., clearing, stripping, grading) activities. • Monitor the proposed construction right-of-way during the PCM Program and operation for areas of prolific weed growth. Undertake measures to control weeds at identified locations. • Implement applicable mitigative measures listed above during maintenance activities (e.g., integrity digs). 4. Alteration of Construction right-of-way Footprint • Schedule construction during dry or frozen ground conditions • Areas of vegetation vegetation to minimize habitat disturbance. important to wildlife important to wildlife • The proposed pipeline has been aligned to follow existing will be altered linear disturbances as much as practical and the proposed including forested construction right-of-way width kept to a minimum to minimize areas, loss of native vegetation to the maximum reasonable extent. watercourses, wetlands and • Do not clear timber, stumps, brush and other vegetation drainage crossings. beyond marked construction right-of-way boundaries [Section 8.2]. • Cut / mow / walk down shrubs and small diameter trees at ground level along the proposed construction right-of-way and temporary workspace where strippings salvage and/or grading is not required [Section 8.2]. • Salvage and redistribute coarse woody debris and organic materials to provide opportunities for restoring ground hibernation habitat [Section 9.0]. • No vegetation clearing or other construction or clean-up activities involving heavy equipment are to occur within the migratory bird nesting period from May 1 to July 31. • Ensure lands with native vegetation are seeded with an appropriate native seed mix or left to naturally regenerate [Section 9.0]. • Allow low growing shrubs to re-establish along the construction right-of-way. 5. Mountain pine Construction right-of-way Footprint to • Clearing activities will be scheduled outside of the flight • Spread of bark beetle Local period (May to September). beetles may occur. • An appropriate strategy for handling and disposing of woody material infested with bark beetles should be developed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency and following methods outlined in the ASRD Directive 2010-01 Mountain Pine Beetle Log management (ASRD 2007a).

Page 6-17

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.6 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 6. Disturbance of Construction right-of-way Footprint to • Implement the standard spill prevention measures outlined in • Depending on the vegetation due to Local Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions. location and spills, drilling mud • In the event of a spill, implement the Spill Contingency Plan. volume, release or product The plan includes measures to be undertaken in the event of disturbance of release a spill on land, ice and in water. vegetation could occur as a result of Utilize an inert, nontoxic bentonitic clay-based material as • an inadvertent spill, drilling mud for watercourse crossings to be horizontally drilling mud release directionally drilled. Implement the Directional Drilling or product release, Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency or from associated Plan in the event of a release. clean-up and • Implement the measures in point 2 of this table to restore any reclamation locations where vegetation is disturbed as a result of an activities. inadvertent spill, drilling mud release, or product release, and • Spot spills, once associated clean-up and reclamation measures. remediated, will have little, if any, adverse residual effect. See also Accidents and Malfunctions Section 6.2.18. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.3.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.7 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on vegetation. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below. An evaluation of significance is not required for those potential effects where no residual effect is identified (i.e., mountain pine beetle).

TABLE 6.7

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON VEGETATION

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Loss or alteration of native vegetation. negative footprint short-term isolated medium to low to high high not long-term medium significant

(b) If mitigative measures do not completely negative footprint short-term isolated short to medium high moderate not protect the site, some loss or alteration of to local medium- significant the local rare plant population may occur. term

(c) Weed introduction and spread may negative footprint short-term isolated to short to low high high not occur. to local occasional medium- significant term (d) Areas of vegetation important to wildlife negative footprint short-term isolated medium to low high high not will be altered including forested areas, to local long-term significant watercourses, wetlands and drainage crossings (e) Spread of bark beetles may occur. negative footprint short-term isolated medium to medium low high not to local long-term significant

Page 6-18

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (f) Depending on the location and volume, negative footprint immediate accidental short to low to low moderate not disturbance of vegetation could occur as to local to short- long-term high significant a result of an inadvertent spill, drilling term mud release or product release, or from associated clean-up and reclamation activities. (g) Combined effects on native vegetation. negative footprint short-term isolated to short- to medium high high not to local occasional long-term significant

Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated

Alteration of Native Vegetation The proposed pipeline was aligned to follow existing right-of-ways to the extent practical following the route evaluation criteria outlined in Section 4.1.1 of this ESA. Disturbed areas through native vegetation segments will be seeded with the appropriate native seed mix or allowed to naturally regenerate. No locally or regionally adopted threshold or standard exists against which the incremental change in vegetation composition can be judged. This residual effect is limited to the Footprint, reversible in the medium to long-term and of low to medium magnitude (Table 6.7, point [a]).

Rare Vascular Plant Species of Concern Rare plant surveys were conducted along the majority of the route with an emphasis on riparian areas and any other areas identified as having high potential to support rare plants (e.g., seepage areas, under- represented ecosystems). Six ACIMS-listed rare vascular plant species and one rare nonvascular plant species were observed during the rare plant survey along the proposed pipeline. These included: ascending grape fern (Botrychium ascendens; S2), observed off right-of-way in 5-11-65-7 W6M; conic liverwort (Conocephalum conicum; S2), observed on right-of-way in 14-2-65-7 W6M and off right-of-way in 5-22-65-7 W6M and 12-15-66-7 W6M; dainty moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum; S1), observed off right-of-way in 5 and 12-11-65-7 W6M and 3-33-65-7 W6M; golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium iowense; S2S3), observed off right-of-way in 3-4-66-7 W6M; lance-leaved grape fern (Botrychium lanceolatum; S2), observed off right-of-way in 3-33-65-7 W6M; Macloskey's violet (Viola pallens; S2S3), observed on right- of-way in 14-2-65-7 W6M and off right-of-way in 12-11-65-7 W6M and 12-15-66-7 W6M; northern moonwort (Botrychium pinnatum; S3), observed off right-of-way in 5 and 12-11-65-7 W6M, 13-11-65-7 W6M and SW 14-65-7 W6M, 7-22-65-7 W6M and 3-33-65-7 W6M. One potential ACIMS- listed rare ecological community, an aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla community, was observed in SW 22-65-7 W6M.

Protection measures and environmental management techniques for rare plants will be based on site- specific conditions and species sensitivity criteria. Final decisions on mitigative measures will be made by NGTL in consultation with botanical experts, ACIMS and, where appropriate, the land authority. Mitigative measures for vascular plant species of concern generally fall into categories of avoidance, minimizing disturbance and alternative reclamation techniques. These proposed mitigative measures have been used previously on other major pipeline construction projects with good success. The following are some examples.

Narrowing down of the right-of-way was undertaken at several locations during construction of the Alliance Pipeline Project in 1999. For example, in central Alberta, Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) (S3W) was fenced and the right-of-way narrowed down. During PCM in summer 2000, the Douglas hawthorn was thriving and showed no signs of impact due to construction (Fryer et al. 2002).

Page 6-19

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

During construction of the Alliance Pipeline in central Alberta, disturbance of low milkweed (Asclepias ovalifolia) (S2) was avoided by extending the length of a bore of the highway, railway and creek that were in the vicinity of the rare plant (Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership [Alliance] 2000a).

During construction of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Capacity Expansion Project in 1994, seed from sand nutgrass (Cyperus schweinitzii) (S2) in the Hardisty, Alberta area was collected and stratified for dispersal following construction. During the PCM program, numerous sand nutgrass plants were found where the collected seed was sown (Interprovincial Pipe Line 1995).

Based on the assessment of the rare vascular plants that will be encountered during construction, the proven mitigative measures described above are considered to be appropriate and applicable to the vascular species that may be, and are encountered by the proposed pipeline route. However, if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, a loss or alteration of a portion of the local population of rare vascular plants may occur. By basing mitigation on species ranking, abundance, growth habit and habitat, in addition to its location on the right-of-way, any loss or alteration of the local rare plant population would be reduced to a level such that the local population is not placed at risk. Consequently, the residual effects of the construction of the pipeline on rare vascular plant species are reversible in the short to medium-term and of medium magnitude (Table 6.7, point [b]).

Rare Ecological Communities Protection measures and environmental management techniques for rare ecological communities will be based on site-specific conditions and species sensitivity criteria. Final decisions on mitigative measures will be made by NGTL in consultation with botanical experts, ACIMS and where appropriate, the land authority. In the event that rare ecological communities are identified within the Footprint during late summer 2010 supplemental surveys, the Plant Species and Ecological Communities of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan (Appendix 9 of this ESA) will be implemented.

The mitigative measures proposed in Detail 1 (Appendix 9 of this ESA) have been used successfully on other major pipeline construction projects. For example, narrowing down of the right-of-way for sensitive communities was successfully undertaken during construction at several locations on the Alliance Pipeline Project (Alliance 2000a,b). Covering the rare plant community with geotextile or ramping over the community are measures that are expected to have higher success during construction in frozen conditions when plants are dormant and snow can be used to protect the vegetation.

The mitigative measures described above are considered to be appropriate and applicable to the proposed pipeline. The residual effects of the pipeline on rare ecological communities, if any are encountered, are confined to the Footprint or the LSA, are reversible in the medium to long-term and of medium magnitude (Table 6.7, point [b]).

Weeds In general, invasive species tend to inhabit areas where the seed bank has been disturbed by anthropogenic activity. Mitigative measures outlined in Table 6.6 of this ESA are proven and effective industry standard measures to minimize the introduction and spread of weeds. These measures will be implemented during both construction and maintenance activities (e.g., integrity dig activities). This residual effect is reversible in the short to medium-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.7, point [c]).

Alteration of Vegetation Important to Wildlife The proposed pipeline was aligned along existing right-of-ways to the extent practical following the route evaluation criteria outlined in Section 4.1.1 of this ESA. Construction will take place during dry or frozen ground conditions and outside the migratory bird nesting period from May 1 to July 3 to minimize disturbance of habitat important to wildlife. No unique vegetation habitats important for wildlife were identified during the wildlife habitat assessment for the Project. The mitigative measures described above are considered to be appropriate and applicable to the proposed pipeline. The residual effects of the pipeline on alteration of vegetation important to wildlife are confined to the Footprint or the LSA, are reversible in the medium to long-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.7, point [d]).

Page 6-20

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Accidental Spills, Drilling Mud or Product Release Depending on the location and volume, disturbance of vegetation could occur as a result of an inadvertent spill, drilling mud release, or from associated clean-up and reclamation activities. The magnitude of this effect would vary depending on the severity of the spill or release, the location of the event, and the plant species or ecological community present (e.g., the magnitude is higher if S1 plant populations or ecological communities are disturbed). Due to the unpredictability of a spill or release, mitigation typically implemented to prevent disturbance to rare vegetation would not be practical. Therefore, the magnitude of the residual effect associated with a spill or release that would result in the loss of rare plant or ecological community would potentially be high. However, the probability of such an event occurring is low (Table 6.7, point [f]). See Section 6.2.18 for further discussions of Accidents and Malfunctions.

Combined Effects on Vegetation When the combined effects of the construction and operation of the pipeline on vegetation are considered, one combined residual effect is identified: combined effects of the pipeline on native vegetation (i.e., forest and bush). The combined effects evaluation considers the individual potential residual effects evaluated in Section 6.2.3.3 (residual effects [a] through [d] of Table 6.7) that are likely to occur, and could act in combination on native vegetation. The spread of mountain pine beetle as a result of the Project or the disturbance of vegetation due to accidental spills or product release are not considered in the combined effects on vegetation since the probability of occurrence of these events is low.

Combined Effects on Native Vegetation The following potential residual effects acting are likely to act in combination to result in overall effects on native vegetation:

• loss or alteration of native vegetation;

• if mitigative measures do not completely protect the site, some loss or alteration of the local population of concern may occur;

• weed introduction and spread may occur; and

• areas of vegetation important to wildlife will be altered including forested areas, watercourses, wetlands and drainage crossings.

All of the individual adverse effects identified above have the potential to act in combination on native vegetation traversed by the proposed pipeline. The probability of all of these residual effects acting in combination at any specific location along proposed route is high. The magnitude of the combined effects on native vegetation is considered medium because of the amount of new cut through an area with a number of identified rare plants and ecological communities. The combined effects of the pipeline on native vegetation will not be significant (Table 6.7, point [g]).

6.2.3.4 Summary As identified in Table 6.7, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on vegetation of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on vegetation will be not significant.

Page 6-21

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity

6.2.4.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on water quality and quantity were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.8, along with a summary of measures recommended to avoid or mitigate the potential effects. Standard pipeline construction activities are designed to avoid circumstances that result in diversion and/or unnatural retention of water along the construction right-of-way.

TABLE 6.8

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Alteration of natural Construction right-of- Footprint to • Leave gaps in the strippings windrow, if warranted, at obvious • Minor localized surface water flow way Local drainage courses, sidehill terrain and wherever seepage alteration of natural patterns occurs to accommodate surface run-off [Section 8.3]. drainage patterns • Leave breaks in the trench crown at drainages, on sidehill may occur until terrain and wherever seepage occurs to minimize trench settlement is interferences with natural drainage patterns [Section 8.6]. complete. • Restore construction right-of-way to as close to preconstruction contours as practical during reclamation if rutting has occurred. Regrade areas with vehicle ruts, erosion gullies or where a trench crown is remaining or trench has settled [Section 9.0]. • Unless culverts are installed during surface preparation activities, remove bar ditch ramps during rough clean-up to prevent blockage of spring run-off in ditches [Section 8.6]. 2. Instability of trench Construction right-of- Footprint to • Winter construction will minimize the amount of water • No residual effect at locations with way Local encountered during construction due to lower water tables. identified. high water table • Dewater the trench using sumps and pump where warranted onto stable vegetation, tarps or sheeting in a manner that does not cause icing, erosion or sedimentation of a wetland or watercourse. Slope trench walls to maintain stability as warranted [Section 8.4]. 3. Disruption of Watercourses and Footprint to • It is anticipated that watercourses will be crossed during dry • No residual effect streamflow Drainages: Local and/or frozen conditions. identified. 18 watercourses • Maintain flow during instream construction at all watercourses including Bald Mountain Creek and 17 unnamed where water is present by isolating the work areas (e.g., dam tributaries; 9 drainages and pump or flume) or utilizing a trenchless crossing technique (e.g., horizontal directional drill [HDD]). Store instream spoil on banks unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authority. Complete instream construction as quickly as possible [Section 8.4]. • The recommended pipeline crossing technique and vehicle crossing method for each watercourse and drainage along the right-of-way with the instream RAP are presented in Table 2 of Appendix 6. • NGTL will follow the conditions of the applicable AENV Codes of Practice during pipeline crossing activities. • NGTL will follow all applicable DFO Operational Statements during pipeline installation activities. • NGTL will follow the conditions of the applicable AENV Codes of Practice during hydrostatic testing activities.

Page 6-22

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 4. Disturbance of Watercourses: Footprint to • The proposed pipeline route has been aligned to cross the • No residual effect watercourse 18 watercourses Local watercourses at or near right angles, and at locations where identified. substrate and including Bald Mountain the banks are relatively stable. banks Creek and 17 unnamed • The watercourses along the proposed pipeline will be crossed watercourses; as identified in Table 2 of Appendix 6. 9 drainages • Vehicle crossing methods for the watercourses along the proposed route will be used/installed as per Table 2 of Appendix 6 and in compliance with the Code of Practice and, if warranted, Transport Canada Navigable Waters approval conditions. • Prior to the installation of the water crossing and the commencement of instream activity, the Contractor will ensure that all necessary equipment and materials are available and onsite. The Contractor will weld, coat, and weight the water crossing portion of pipe prior to the commencement of instream ditching activity. To minimize the length of instream activity, the Contractor shall make every effort to trench, lower-in, and, if warranted, backfill the water crossings within the same working day [Section 8.4]. • All trees will be felled away from watercourses. NGTL’s authorized representative will determine working surface conditions for the execution of machine clearing. If the working surface is not consolidated, machine clearing of merchantable timber will not be permitted within 10 m of the watercourse channel (i.e., hand clearing only). Subsequent to clearing, the 10 m vegetation buffer will remain intact (i.e., consisting of low-lying understory vegetation) [Section 8.4]. • Grading and grubbing of watercourse banks will be restricted to the trench line plus an additional width to accommodate the safe installation of the crossing. This restriction applies to within 10 m of the high water mark and limited to crossings using a standard (open cut) or isolated crossing method. • Stabilization and interim reclamation of approach slopes and banks will commence immediately following the backfilling of the watercourse / drainage bed and if possible, prior to removal of the isolation equipment. Final reclamation of banks may be postponed until fall to provide the conditions promoting the best possibility of success of the proposed biostabilization work. If reclamation is postponed, interim measures such as berms and/or silt fence will be installed [Section 8.4]. • The bed and banks will be recontoured to a stable condition. Diversion berms will be placed at the top of the bank and at intervals along the approach slope to remove surface runoff to a well-vegetated off right-of-way location [Section 8.4].

Page 6-23

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 5. Reduction of Watercourses: Footprint to • It is anticipated that watercourses and drainages will be • Potential reduction surface water 18 watercourses Local crossed during periods of negligible flow, or dry and/or frozen in surface water quality including Bald Mountain conditions. quality due to Creek and 17 unnamed suspended solids watercourses; • Watercourses will be constructed using an isolation or HDD method if water is present. during instream 9 drainages construction of To reduce the possible introduction of sediment into a • isolated crossings watercourse channel or onto the ice surface and on steep or vehicle and/or unstable watercourse banks, any necessary grading of crossings. the banks will be directed away from the watercourse [Section 8.4]. • Potential reduction in surface water Erosion control measures will be installed to prevent surface • quality due to runoff from entering the watercourse channels during the inadvertent drilling grading of approach slopes, these measures may include the mud release if the following [Sections 6.4 and 6.5]. HDD crossing - Where feasible, temporary diversion berms will be method is used. constructed across the slope with berm termination • Potential adjacent to the right-of-way and located in a well- contamination of vegetated area. The termination area must be capable of surface water due handling all runoff and of an adequate size to allow for to spills or product the filtering of sediments. release during - Vegetation buffer strips may be used on watercourse construction or approach slopes. operation. • Silt fence may be used if deemed suitable based on the site • If spot spills occur, conditions and expected activities. they will be • Adhere to the following spill prevention measures: prohibit fuel remediated, after storage, refuelling or servicing of equipment within 100 m of which they will have watercourses, drainages and wetlands except where little, if any, adverse secondary containment is provided; and ensure equipment residual effect. See used for instream construction is well-maintained and free of also Accidents and fluid leaks [Section 8.1]. Malfunctions • In the event of a spill, immediately implement measures to Section 6.2.18. stop, control the migration of, and clean-up the spilled substance as outlined in the Spill Contingency Plan (see also Accidents and Malfunctions Section 6.2.18). • Adhere to the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan [Appendix 8E] in the event that the HDD method is used and a drilling mud release occurs during construction. • The pipeline design, as well as preventative maintenance procedures will limit the potential for and volume of a product release in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture during operation.

Page 6-24

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.8 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 6. Reduction of Construction right-of- Footprint to • Adhere to the following spill prevention measures: prohibit fuel • Potential groundwater way Local storage, refuelling or servicing of equipment within 100 m of contamination of quality and quantity watercourses, drainages and wetlands except where groundwater due to secondary containment is provided; and ensure equipment spills or product used for instream construction is well-maintained and free of release during fluid leaks [Section 8.1]. construction or • In the event of a spill, immediately implement measures to operation. stop, control the migration of, and clean-up the spilled • If spot spills occur, substance as outlined in the Spill Contingency Plan (see also they will be Accidents and Malfunctions Section 6.2.18) [Section 1.0 of remediated, after Appendix 8E]. which they will have • Adhere to the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream little, if any, adverse Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan [Appendix 8E] in the residual effect. See event of a drilling mud release during construction. also Accidents and • The pipeline design, as well as preventative maintenance Malfunctions procedures will limit the potential for and volume of a product Section 6.2.18. release in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture during operation. • Loss or alteration of vegetation may impact quantity of groundwater. See Vegetation Section 6.2.3 for mitigation measures to reduce loss or alteration of native vegetation and communities. • If springs are encountered along the route, install trench breakers to force groundwater seepage along the pipeline trench to the surface. Install subdrains, if warranted, to divert shallow groundwater flow from the construction right-of-way [Section 7.0]. 7. Withdrawal and Test locations Footprint to • Conduct all hydrostatic testing activities in accordance with • No residual effect release of Local the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations, provincial regulations identified. hydrostatic test as well as the latest version of CSA Z662 [Section 8.7]. water • Shunt test water ahead from test section to test section to the extent possible to minimize water hauling, water usage and number of dewatering points [Section 8.7]. • Screen and locate test water intakes to prevent the intake of fish and fish eggs. Before testing, NGTL will acquire all necessary approvals for access to the approved water withdrawal site. The intake pipe will be screened with mesh sized no greater than 2.54 mm distance between strands. The maximum velocity of water withdrawal across the intake screen and the rate of water withdrawal will conform to specifications as outlined in the Water Resources Code of Practice Notification [Section 8.4]. • Ensure generators and pumps used for water intake have secondary containment. Ensure any leaks in the fill and discharge lines are controlled to prevent erosion [Section 8.7]. • The withdrawal rate and volume will not exceed 10% of the flow rate of the watercourse or of the volume of the body of water unless otherwise approved by the appropriate authority [Section 8.7]. • If test water is released into a natural waterbody, ensure that the appropriate testing and treatment measures are implemented in accordance with provincial regulations related to discharging hydrostatic test water [Section 8.7]. • Hydrostatic test water shall be discharged into the same drainage basin, unless otherwise approved by the appropriate authority [Section 8.7] • Control the discharge rate of test water to reduce the potential for soil erosion. • Install energy diffusers and plywood sheeting, tarpaulins or other similar material to reduce the risk of soil erosion. Reduce the discharge rate if erosion becomes evident [Section 8.7].

Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

Page 6-25

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.4.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.9 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on water quality and quantity. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below. An evaluation of significance is not required for those potential effects where no residual effect is identified (i.e., altering flow patterns, instability of the trench at locations with high water table, disruption of streamflow, disturbance of watercourse substrate and banks, reduction of surface and groundwater quality, and water withdrawal and release of hydrostatic test water).

TABLE 6.9

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Minor localized alteration of natural negative footprint short-term isolated short-term low to high high not drainage patterns may occur until trench to local medium significant settlement is complete. (b) Potential reduction in surface water negative footprint short-term isolated immediate low high high not quality due to suspended solids during to local to significant instream construction of isolated and short-term open cut crossings. (c) Potential reduction in surface water negative footprint short-term accidental immediate negligible low high not quality due to an inadvertent drilling mud to local to short-term to significant release during HDD crossings. medium (d) Potential contamination of surface water negative footprint short- accidental immediate low to low moderate not due to spills or product release during to local term, to high significant construction or operation of pipeline. occasional short-term (e) Potential reduction in groundwater quality negative footprint short-term accidental short to low to low high not resulting from a spill or product release to local long-term medium significant during construction of pipeline. Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Minor Localized Alteration of Natural Surface Drainage Patterns With proper implementation of the mitigation measures proposed, disruption of surface flow patterns following construction is likely to be minor along all segments of the route. In the event that construction or maintenance activities result in changes in surface water flow, corrective action, in consultation with the appropriate authorities, will be undertaken to resolve the issue. The residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of low to medium magnitude (Table 6.9, point [a]).

Reduction in Surface Water Quality

Isolated and Small Open Cut Crossings The selection of appropriate watercourse crossing techniques, designed to meet federal and provincial regulatory requirements, as well as implementation of erosion controls on the approaches to water crossings and riparian vegetation, are likely to substantially reduce the potential for adverse effects on surface water quality at the watercourses encountered along the proposed pipeline. During construction of the trenched crossings, minor and short-term sediment releases may occur during installation of the pipeline and vehicle crossings.

Page 6-26

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Recent evidence demonstrates that smaller waterbodies that lack substantial subsurface flow can be readily isolated with minimal sediment introduction when proper design, construction and mitigation measures are applied (Reid et al. 2002, CAPP et al. 2005). Consequently, it is anticipated that average total suspended solids (TSS) levels during construction of watercourse crossings will be below the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines for short-term (24 hour) exposure of 25 mg/L above baseline levels (CCME 2002). Residual effects on water quality during the recommended trenched crossing and access road vehicle crossing are reversible in the immediate to short-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.9, point [b]).

Inadvertent Drilling Mud Release Although unlikely, it is possible for a drilling mud release to occur during HDD crossings that could cause sedimentation of surface water. If HDD is required, the bentonite mud used for HDD crossings will be inert, which will prevent potential chemical contamination of surface water resulting from a drilling mud release. Although sedimentation may occur, the proposed mitigative measures are expected to reduce the magnitude of a drilling mud release on surface water quality to negligible to medium levels. Depending on the volume and location (e.g., sensitivity of receiving waterbody) drilling mud release, the magnitude could vary from low to high. This residual effect is reversible in the immediate to short-term and is of low probability (Table 6.9, point [c]).

Contamination of Surface Water Due to Spills or Product Release A spill or product release during construction and operation could cause contamination of surface water. Spill prevention measures outlined in Table 6.8 and the EPP will be followed. Depending on the volume and location (e.g., sensitivity of receiving waterbody) of a spill or product release, the magnitude could vary from low to high. This residual effect is reversible in the immediate to short-term and is of low probability (Table 6.9, point [d]).

Reduction in Groundwater Quality

Spill or Product Release Reduced groundwater levels and frozen soils during the proposed construction schedule (winter) will aid in preventing migration of any spill to groundwater by enabling fast and effective clean-up. With the implementation of preventative and clean-up and remediation measures, spills potentially affecting groundwater are considered to be of low to medium magnitude and reversible in the short to long-term (Table 6.9, point [e]).

Combined Effects on Water Quality and Quantity An evaluation of the combined effects considers those residual effects that are likely to occur. Since the probability of the Project affecting surface water or groundwater quality due to spills or product release is low, the only potential residual effects that remain are minor localized alteration of natural drainage patterns until trench settlement is complete, which are not expected to act in combination with each other. Consequently, an evaluation of combined effects on reduction in surface water quality and quantity during instream construction of the pipeline is not warranted.

6.2.4.3 Summary As identified in Table 6.9, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on water quality and quantity of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on water quality or quantity will not be significant.

Page 6-27

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat

6.2.5.1 Ecological Context The proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) route is located in the Peace/Slave River Basin with watercourse crossings located in the Bald Mountain Creek and Cutbank River sub- basins (AENV 2009a). Field investigations during June and July 2010 identified 18 watercourse crossings along the pipeline route (Table 5.1 of this ESA). In addition, there were nine non-classified drainages identified along the route.

No fish species at risk listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) are known or expected to occur within the Project area (COSEWIC 2010a). However, Arctic grayling populations in Alberta are high priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2010b). The following four species listed as 'sensitive' in Alberta (ASRD 2005a) are or could be found in the sub-basin, near the study area: bull trout; Arctic grayling; largescale sucker; and northern redbelly dace.

Fish species captured within the mainstem of Bald Mountain Creek or within 2 km upstream from the mouths of any of its tributaries occurring in the area of the Project include: Arctic grayling; white sucker; longnose sucker; brook stickleback; lake chub; pearl dace; trout-perch; fathead minnow; longnose dace; northern redbelly dace; finescale dace; redside shiner; and emerald shiner. Species captured within unnamed tributaries to the Cutbank River in the area of the pipeline are limited to: Arctic grayling; bull trout; burbot; mountain whitefish; white sucker; longnose sucker; lake chub; longnose dace; and slimy sculpin.

Fish and fish habitat sensitivity for all species are generally highest during spawning and emergence, and when they may be stressed by habitat conditions (e.g., during winter where suitable habitat may be limited or in summer when water temperatures or dissolved oxygen levels approach critical thresholds). The habitat conditions documented at the watercourse crossings along the pipeline route indicate that potential for critical habitats (i.e., spawning habitat for fall spawning species and overwinter habitat) to occur in the stream reaches that have the greatest potential to be negatively impacted by construction activities (ie., the zone-of-influence during construction activities) is low. As a result, with the successful implementation of the recommended mitigation the potential for the project to negatively affect sensitive species or sensitive fish habitat is also considered low.

6.2.5.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects on fish and fish habitat associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline were identified by the Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Horse Lake First Nation, Nose Creek Nation, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation, Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society and the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.10, along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

Page 6-28

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.10

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Riparian habitat Watercourse crossings Footprint • Adhere to all approvals, permits and authorizations issued by • Clearing or loss and alteration regulatory authorities as well as all conditions related to disturbance of during construction regulatory notifications. riparian vegetation • Use the vehicle and pipeline crossing methods recommended within construction for each crossing, which have been selected using data right-of-way and collected during field investigations and government temporary consultation, as well as previous construction programs, to workspace. reduce direct and indirect effects on productive fish and riparian habitat [Section 8.4]. • Cross watercourses perpendicularly, to minimize riparian disturbance. • Postpone clearing of watercourse approach slopes and banks until immediately prior to crossing construction except, if required, to install vehicle crossing structures. Where earlier clearing is approved by the appropriate authority, leave the vegetative ground mat and root structure intact [Section 8.4]. • Salvage surface organic material (e.g., low vegetation, leaf litter, partially decomposed organic matter) with the upper strippings (to the depth of the root zone) from watercourse banks for reclamation, if it can be removed intact [Section 8.4]. • Stabilize banks and approach slopes and install temporary berms, silt fences, or cross ditches in any location where runoff from the proposed construction right-of-way may flow into a watercourse [Section 8.4]. • Seed riparian areas with an approved native cover crop and seed mix as soon as feasible after construction (prior to spring freshet wherever possible) [Section 9.0 of Appendix 6]. • Restore natural drainage and channel configurations [Section 9.0]. • Transplant shrubs or install willow stakes during reclamation of streambanks where shrubbery is present prior to construction [Section 9.0].

Page 6-29

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.10 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 2. Instream habitat Watercourse crossings Footprint to General • Alteration of loss and alteration Local • Adhere to all approvals, permits and authorizations issued by instream habitat at regulatory authorities as well as all conditions related to trenched crossings regulatory notifications. and temporary • Use the vehicle and pipeline crossing methods recommended vehicle crossings. for the crossing, which have been selected using data collected during field investigations, as well as previous construction programs, to reduce direct and indirect effects on productive fish habitat (Table 2 and Section 8.4). • Limit the duration of instream work period to the greatest extent feasible (Section 8.4). • Fell trees away from watercourses. Immediately remove trees, debris or soil inadvertently deposited below the high water mark of watercourses (Section 8.4). • Contour and stabilize banks and approach slopes (Section 9.0). • Install temporary berms, silt fences, or cross ditches at any location where runoff from the proposed construction right-of- way may flow into a watercourse (Section 8.4). • Leave hard ditch plugs at least 3 m wide and leave in place to protect banks from sloughing at isolated and open cut crossings until construction of the crossing has been initiated (Section 8.4). Open Cut Crossing Technique • Where use of an open cut crossing method is planned, salvage the upper substrate material and stockpile separately to cap the trench during backfilling. Trench through watercourse [Section 8.4]. • Limit clearing of riparian vegetation. Only remove plants within the construction right-of-way at the crossing that pose an operational or safety risk [Section 8.4]. • Limit the duration of instream work to the extent feasible [Section 8.4]. • Locate watercourse crossings perpendicular to banks. • Pile all spoil above the banks, if feasible. Construct a temporary storage area for spoil above the high watermark of the watercourse if spoil is likely to be highly saturated. Excavate a pit or construct berms of packed earth, staked straw bales or swamp weights, if warranted, to prevent spoil from flowing back into the watercourse. Containment berms and spoil should be back from the streambank. Note that the vegetative buffers are to be maintained and, consequently, spoil may require stockpiling back from the banks [Section 8.4]. • Return salvaged streambed surface material (or material of equivalent quality) to top layer of backfill. Where granular material is encountered at the surface during excavation, salvage this material separately for replacement, or cap the trench with 0.5 m of clean granular material [Section 8.4]. • Maintain or restore natural drainage and channel configurations [Section 9.0].

Page 6-30

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.10 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 2. Instream habitat Same as above Same as Isolation Crossing Technique • Same as above loss and alteration above • Where an isolation crossing method is planned, implement (cont’d) the following measures: - ensure water from flumes, dam and pumps, diversions or other methods do not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel [Section 8.4]; - limit clearing of riparian vegetation. Only remove plants within the construction right-of-way at the crossing that pose an operational or safety risk [Section 8.4]; - ensure that sufficient equipment is available on site to limit the amount of time the crossing is isolated [Section 8.4]; - locate watercourse crossings perpendicular to banks; - ensure downstream flow is maintained at all times in fish- bearing watercourses [Section 8.4]; - construct a sump with berms, silt fences or straw bale filters to contain excavated instream spoil so that it does not re-enter the waterbody [Section 8.4]; - do not use earthen berms to isolate the crossing construction area [Section 8.4]; - salvage upper substrate material and stockpile separately to cap the trench during backfilling [Section 8.4]; - dewater the trench onto stable surfaces in a manner that does not cause erosion of soils, sedimentation of watercourse, or where icing will not be a problem [Section 8.4]; - return salvaged streambed surface material (or material of equivalent quality) to top layer of backfill. Where granular material is encountered at the surface during excavation, salvage this material separately for replacement or, cap the trench with 0.5 m of clean granular material [Section 8.4]; and - maintain or restore natural drainage and channel configurations [Section 9.0]. • Replace aquatic vegetation and organic debris removed from the construction area following trench backfilling [Section 8.4]. • Monitor water quality during instream construction where trench method crossing is used at fish-bearing watercourses, or where important fish habitats occur immediately downstream [Section 8.4]. Trenchless Crossing Technique • If HDD is required, conduct geotechnical evaluations to assess the risk of frac-out [Section 8.1]. • If HDD is required, ensure inspection and contractor personnel are familiar with the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan prior to commencement of trenchless crossing construction so that measures can be implemented quickly in the event of a drilling mud frac-out or crossing failure [Appendix 8E]. • If HDD is required, use an inert, nontoxic bentonitic clay- based material as drilling mud for trenchless crossings [Section 8.4]. • If HDD is required, monitor to assess the immediate effects of crossing construction at trenchless crossings. Also monitor sediment release (i.e., turbidity and total suspended solids) throughout the crossing construction period, if required. If monitoring reveals sediment values are approaching threshold values, the Environmental Monitors will alert the Environmental Inspectors/Construction Manager and work with them to develop corrective actions. If corrective actions are not successful, construction will be temporarily suspended until effective solutions are identified [Section 8.4].

Page 6-31

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.10 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 3. Increased Watercourse crossings Footprint to • Install, where warranted, temporary diversion berms on • Increase in suspended Local approach slopes to watercourses and silt fences near the suspended solids sediment base of approach slopes to watercourses following grading. during instream concentrations in Repair damaged temporary erosion control structures before construction at the water column the end of each working day [Section 8.4]. trenched crossings. • Store excavated instream spoil back from watercourse banks and in a contained area to prevent silty runoff from entering the watercourse [Section 8.4]. • Postpone watercourse crossing construction if excessive flows, flood conditions or heavy precipitation exist or are anticipated, and construction methods cannot be modified to cope with the increased flow [see Flood and Excessive Flow Contingency Plan, Section 3.0 of Appendix 8E]. • Place salvaged surface material above the high water mark in a manner that does not block drainage or runoff [Section 8.4]. • Recontour and stabilize banks and approach slopes, and install temporary berms, silt fences and/or cross ditches at any location where runoff from the proposed construction right-of-way may flow into a watercourse [Section 8.4]. • Seed with an approved native cover crop and seed mix prior to spring freshet wherever possible [Section 9.0]. • Isolate construction area where water is present in waterbodies with fish habitat potential to reduce sediment input. At these sites, implement the following measures: - ensure water from flumes, dam and pumps, diversions or other methods does not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel [Section 8.4]; - construct a sump with berms, silt fences or straw bale filters to contain excavated instream spoil so that it does not re-enter the waterbody [Section 8.4]; - dewater the trench onto stable surfaces in a manner that does not cause erosion of soils, sedimentation of watercourses or where icing will not be a problem [Section 8.4]; and - in fish-bearing waterbodies, leave hard ditch plugs at least 3 m wide in place until construction of the crossing has been initiated [Section 8.4]. • During the installation and removal of isolation methods a water quality monitoring plan should be developed with input from a QAES to monitor how total suspended solids concentrations compare to CCME (CCME 2007) and AENV (1999) guidelines. In some cases, such as where fisheries concerns or flow volumes are minimal, the water quality monitoring plan may only require visual monitoring. • In fish-bearing waterbodies, postpone clearing of slopes and banks until immediately prior to construction and leave an uncleared buffer zone extending back from the crest of erosion prone slopes where practical [Section 8.4]. • Where earlier clearing is necessary, leave the vegetative ground mat and root structure intact.

Page 6-32

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.10 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 4. Fish mortality or Watercourse crossings: Footprint to • Use qualified and experienced personnel to salvage fish from • Potential for injury Bald Mountain Creek Region isolated instream construction areas and any bypass increased fish (4-12-68-7 W6M) and structures prior to dewatering and trenching at designated mortality or injury one unnamed tributary to crossings. due to construction Bald Mountain Creek • Conduct fish salvage, in accordance with permit conditions, activities may (5-2-67-7 W6M) using appropriate methods and equipment to effectively occur. capture fish with minimal potential for stress and injury to fish. Release all captured fish to areas downstream of the crossing that provide suitable rearing habitat [Section 8.4]. • Ensure pump intakes do not disturb the streambed and are screened with a maximum mesh size of 2.54 mm and approach velocity of 0.038 m/s. To accomplish this, where pumps larger than 15 cm diameter are used, the intakes should be placed in a mesh cage (2.54 mm) to reduce the approach velocity that fish are exposed and to prevent them from being impinged on the intakes [Section 8.4]. • Restrict water removal for hydrostatic testing to less than 10% of volume at designated waterbodies unless otherwise approved by the appropriate authority [Section 8.7]. • Do not permit construction personnel to fish on the worksite [Section 8.1]. • Implement the measures identified in Point 3 of this table to minimize instream sediment deposition that could harm developing fish eggs, embryos or juveniles within the stream bed, as well as minimize suspended sediments in the water that could cause abrasions to fish gill tissue. 5. Blockage of fish Watercourse crossings: Footprint to • If isolated equipment needs to be left instream for more than • Temporary movements Bald Mountain Creek Region three days, and fish are observed congregating on one side blockage of fish (4-12-68-7 W6M) and of the isolation, fish salvage may be needed to relocate fish to movement during one unnamed tributary to the other side of the isolated area [Section 8.4]. isolated Bald Mountain Creek • Ensure that all equipment used during watercourse crossings watercourse (5-2-67-7 W6M) is on site prior to the commencement of construction to crossings may ensure construction, once commenced, can be completed occur. with minimal delay [Section 8.4]. • Maintain 100% of the flow throughout instream activity period in fish-bearing waterbodies [Section 8.4]. • Remove all temporary vehicle crossings as soon as practical following completion of construction activities and prior to spring break-up [Section 9.0]. 6. Contamination Watercourse crossings Footprint to • Require all contractor personnel to participate in a safety and • Potential from spills during Local environmental training session that will include instruction on contamination of construction and the requirement for all Project-related vehicles to follow instream and operation applicable traffic, road-use and safety laws [Section 4.0]. riparian habitat from • Spill kits will be onsite at all times [Section 8.1]. spills or product release during Adhere to Spill Contingency procedures to avoid contaminant • construction and introduction to waterbodies during construction. These operation. include the following [Appendix 8E]: • See Section 6.2.18 - do not dispose of petroleum products or waste into Accidents and waterways or on the ground. Prepare contingency plans Malfunctions. for fuel and hazardous waste spills and ensure that all fuel and service vehicles carry a spill kit; - ensure that all hazardous material storage and oil changes, refuelling, washing and lubrication of industrial equipment occurs more than 100 m from a waterbody except where secondary containment is provided; and - use vegetable-based hydraulic oils in hydraulic systems working near watercourses, if practical. Inspect hydraulic, fuel and lubrication systems to ensure they are in good condition and free of leaks. • The pipeline design and maintenance activities will limit the potential for a volume of a product release that could contaminate watercourses in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture during operation.

Page 6-33

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.10 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 7. Effects of a drilling Watercourse crossings: Footprint to • Pipeline route selection criteria included minimizing the • During trenchless mud release on Bald Mountain Creek Local number of watercourse crossings to the extent practical. crossing an fish and fish (4-12-68-7 W6M) and • If HDD is required, implement standard trenchless crossing accidental release one unnamed tributary to habitat measures where a trenchless crossing is planned. Ensure of drilling mud Bald Mountain Creek during construction (5-2-67-7 W6M) inspection and contractor staff is familiar with the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release may cause an Contingency Plan prior to commencement of trenchless alteration or crossing construction so that measures can be implemented disturbance of quickly in the event of a drilling mud frac-out or crossing riparian habitat, and failure [Appendix 8E]. an increase in suspended If HDD is required, use an inert, nontoxic bentonitic clay- • sediment based material as drilling mud for trenchless crossings concentrations that [Section 8.4]. may contribute to • Refer to point 1 of this table for additional mitigative measures increased mortality regarding riparian habitat loss and alteration during and injury to fish construction. and sediment deposition resulting in an alteration or disturbance to fish habitat within the zone-of-influence. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.5.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.11 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on fish and fish habitat. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below.

TABLE 6.11

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Clearing or disturbance of riparian negative footprint short-term isolated medium to low high high not vegetation within right-of-way and long-term significant temporary workspace during construction. (b) Alteration of instream habitat at trenched negative footprint short-term isolated short-term to low high high not crossings and temporary vehicle to local permanent significant crossings. (c) Increase in suspended solids during negative footprint short-term isolated immediate low to high high not instream construction at trenched to local to medium significant crossings. short-term (d) Potential for increased fish mortality or negative footprint short-term isolated immediate low low high not injury due to construction activities may to local to short-term significant occur. (e) Temporary blockage of fish movement negative footprint short-term isolated immediate low low high not during isolated watercourse crossings to local to significant may occur. short-term

Page 6-34

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (f) Potential contamination of instream and negative footprint short-term accidental short to low to low high not riparian habitat from spills or product to local medium- high significant release during construction and term operation. (g) Combined effects on fish and fish habitat negative footprint short-term isolated immediate medium high high not during trenched crossings. to local to short-term significant (h) During trenchless crossings an negative footprint short-term accidental medium to low to low high not accidental release of drilling mud during to local long-term medium significant construction may cause an alteration or disturbance of riparian habitat. Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Clearing or Disturbance of Riparian Vegetation Riparian vegetation within the right-of-way and temporary workspace will be disturbed at all trenched (i.e., isolated or open cut) watercourse crossings and watercourses where a temporary vehicle crossing will be installed. During construction, disturbance to riparian vegetation will be kept to a minimum leaving as much existing vegetation intact as possible and efforts to control sedimentation and erosion in disturbed areas will be implemented. Disturbed riparian areas will be seeded post-construction with the appropriate native seed mix along with a quick establishing cover crop. Revegetation plans and associated mitigation are presented in Appendix 3 of this ESA. The residual effect of pipeline construction on clearing riparian vegetation is considered to be of low magnitude, and reversible in the medium to long-term, depending on the pre-existing vegetation community (e.g., shrubs regenerate within several years; however, tree regrowth is expected to extend into the long-term) (Table 6.11, point [a]).

Alteration of Instream Habitat Pipeline route selection criteria included minimizing the number of waterbody crossings to the extent practical and crossing watercourses perpendicular to the banks. Aquatic habitat inventories were conducted at watercourse crossings along the pipeline route in the summer of 2010 by TERA (Appendix 2). Discussions with DFO regarding the proposed watercourse crossings are ongoing. NGTL will, where warranted, request from DFO a case-specific review for determination of whether harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat is likely to occur.

The proposed crossing techniques have taken into consideration the sensitivity of the watercourses, including habitat characteristics, fish species present, and instream work windows, in addition to the construction schedule, and technical and economic feasibility of each crossing (Table 6.10 and Appendix 2). Introduction of fine sediment to watercourses from instream activities, right-of-way runoff and erosion can have sub-lethal (e.g., irritation of gill tissue) and lethal (e.g., suffocation of developing embryos) effects on fish, and can also cause downstream sediment deposition that alters substrate composition and modifies the availability and suitability of habitat for spawning, overwintering and rearing (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991, Anderson et al. 1996). Effects associated with fine sediments in the water column are addressed below.

Bank stabilization through application of native seed mixes with quick germinating cover crops, in addition to enhanced revegetation efforts including geotextiles or biostabilization, will be the preferred methods of stabilizing watercourse banks disturbed as a result of pipeline construction. However, the potential for excessive erosion at some crossings may require placement of rock riprap to control erosion. Although riprap has been shown to have positive effects in some situations (e.g., degraded systems with excessive erosion problems), placement of riprap on previously vegetated banks is generally considered to have negative effects on habitat value (Quigley and Harper 2004). The extent of riprap application, if necessary, is not anticipated to effect watercourse processes (e.g., hydrological changes).

Page 6-35

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

The implementation of the proposed mitigative measures will minimize the potential for HADD of fish or fish habitat as a result of trenched pipeline crossings or temporary vehicle crossings. Nevertheless, a Section 35 authorization will be applied for and compensation will be implemented as defined in the authorization, should HADD be expected to occur as a result of construction activities. The residual effects are expected to be of low magnitude, and generally reversible in the short-term. However, the effect is considered permanent where riprap may be required for bank stabilization. It is expected that the effects of riprap, if used, will be offset by habitat compensation to ensure DFO's "no net loss" policy is met (Table 6.11, point [b]).

Increased in Suspended Solids and Sediment Deposition Pipeline route selection criteria included minimizing the number of waterbody crossings to the extent practical. An evaluation of increased suspended solid concentrations during instream construction is provided in Water Quality and Quantity in Section 6.2.4 of this ESA. Through the selection of appropriate watercourse crossing techniques, vehicle crossing methods and the implementation of surface erosion controls and riparian area revegetation as outlined in Table 6.10 and Appendix 2, the potential for adverse effects on aquatic systems along the route due to suspended solids in the water column is reduced.

Suspended sediment released at isolated crossings during instream activities could cause behavioural or sub-lethal/lethal effects on fish within the zone-of-influence. Suspended sediment concentrations will be monitored, where warranted, during instream activities at isolated crossings with sportfish potential to confirm that TSS averages remain below the CCME standard of 25 mg/L above baseline (CCME 2002). This is the level, based on 24 hours of exposure, when mortalities of the most sensitive life history stage begin to occur (Newcombe 1994).

Minor releases of sediment may be associated with use of the temporary vehicle crossings. Although elevated suspended sediment concentrations may result from instream construction and vehicle crossing use, pulses of suspended solids are generally expected to settle out of the water column within a timeframe measuring from minutes to a few hours.

If required, watershed-scale compensation measures will be developed with participants that may include DFO, ASRD, Aboriginal Communities and/or other stakeholders to offset any net loss in productive habitat capacity and avoid enhancing habitat that would encourage non-native fish to replace native species and strains. In consideration of the unlikelihood of this and, if necessary, compensation, the residual effects of increased suspended solid concentrations on fish habitat are considered reversible in the immediate to short-term and of low to medium magnitude (Table 6.11, point [c]).

Fish Mortality or Injury Suspended sediment released at watercourse crossings with fish habitat potential during instream activities could cause behavioural or sub-lethal/lethal effects on fish. Suspended sediment concentrations will be monitored at these crossings to confirm that averages remain below the CCME standard of 25 mg/L above baseline (CCME 2002). This is the level at which mortality of the most sensitive life history stage has been reported (Newcombe 1994). With the implementation of mitigative measures outlined in Table 6.10, the probability of fish mortality or injury arising from an isolated crossing is low (Table 6.11, point [d]).

Blockage of Fish Movements The mitigative measures outlined in Table 6.10 and Appendix 2 of this ESA will reduce the potential for blockage of fish movements by instream construction and temporary vehicle access. The residual effect of the construction of the pipeline on blockage of fish movements is considered to be reversible in the immediate to short-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.11, point [e]).

Contamination from Spills or Product Release In the event of a large spill such as a fuel truck rollover in a stream, the adverse residual effects could, depending on the size of the spill, be of high magnitude with potentially long lasting ramifications to the

Page 6-36

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 health of the stream. Although spill contingency and clean-up measures would reduce the magnitude and reversibility of the residual effects, such an incident could be considered of high magnitude or significant due to the adverse residual effects if it were to occur in a highly sensitive environment. Since events such as this rarely occur within the construction right-of-way and occur even more rarely instream, the probability of a significant adverse residual effect is low.

Since the pipeline will be buried with a minimum depth of cover of 1.2 m at all watercourse crossings and the product is natural gas, the only potential source of contamination of fish habitat from a product release is from groundwater reaching the surface. A discussion of groundwater contamination is provided in Section 6.2.3. The probability of such an event occurring and causing a residual effect on fish or fish habitat is considered low (Table 6.11, point [f]). See also Accidents and Malfunctions, Section 6.2.18 of this ESA.

Combined Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat An evaluation of the combined effects considers those residual effects that are likely to occur and, therefore, residual effects (d), (e), (f) and (h) in Table 6.11 are not considered in the evaluation of combined effects on fish and fish habitat since the probability of these effects occurring is low. Consequently, the combined effects evaluation considers the individual potential residual effects evaluated in Section 6.2.5.3 (points [ a], [b], [c] of Table 6.11) that are likely to occur, and could act in combination on fish and fish habitat.

The following potential residual effects are likely to act in combination to result in overall effects on fish and fish habitat during a trenched crossing:

• clearing or disturbance of riparian vegetation within right-of-way and temporary workspace;

• alteration of instream habitat within zone-of-influence at trenched crossings and temporary vehicle crossings; and

• increase in suspended solids during instream construction at trenched crossings within the zone-of- influence.

Although all of the individual adverse effects identified above have the potential to act in combination on fish and fish habitat during construction, only first two have a high probability for both effects to occur at most crossings. The third effect above will only occur in combination with the other two effects at watercourses that are flowing at the time of construction. Given no or low flow conditions were documented in June and July at the majority of watercourses, and construction will occur in the winter when most of the watercourses being crossed will be either dry or frozen to bottom, the probability that all three effects will occur at crossings is considered low. Although the probability of two of the combined effects occurring is high, these effects will fall within regulatory standards (e.g., most crossings will be constructed under the conditions prescribed in Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Operational Statement for Isolated or Dry Open-cut Stream Crossings (Versions 1.0). As a result, the magnitude of the combined effects on fish and fish habitat is considered medium and the combined effects of the pipeline on fish and fish habitat will be not significant (Table 6.11, point [g]).

Drilling Mud Release During Construction During HDD crossings, monitoring of drilling fluid volumes and pressure, as well as monitoring of sediment concentrations in the watercourse and on-land frac-outs are expected to minimize the potential for a drilling mud release to affect a watercourse. If a release on land (i.e., terrestrial) were to occur, the inert nature of the bentonite clay used would not contaminate the riparian area. However, clean-up and reclamation measures are likely to result in riparian habitat disturbance. With the implementation of mitigation and reclamation measures, the residual effects of a drilling mud release on riparian habitat are low to medium in magnitude (depending on the size of the release and area effected) and reversible in the medium to long-term (also see Section 6.2.18.1 of this ESA). Efforts to quickly contain a terrestrial release would also be used to minimize the potential for the release to migrate and affect aquatic habitat.

Page 6-37

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

A release of drilling mud into a watercourse could affect instream habitat by increasing suspended sediments and sediment deposition. Increased sediment in the water column can increase the probability of fish mortality (see heading above for more details); however, with the implementation of the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan (Appendix 6), the residual effects of a drilling mud release on fish mortality or injury are considered negligible to high, but of low probability (Table 6.11, residual effect [h]). Section 6.2.18 includes a discussion of residual effects related to an instream drilling mud release, which are considered reversible in the immediate to medium-term, depending on the volume of the release and flow rates of the stream.

6.2.5.4 Summary Mitigation measures have been designed to avoid and minimize the potential effects of the pipeline on fish and fish habitat. Where the mitigation is not expected to prevent the HADD of fish habitat, habitat compensation plans will be developed in association with an application to DFO for an authorization, pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to ensure the Project results in ‘no net loss’ of fish habitat.

As identified in Table 6.11, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on fish and fish habitat of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on the fish and fish habitat will be not significant.

6.2.6 Wetlands

6.2.6.1 Ecological Context The Project is in the Continental Mid-Boreal Wetland Region of Canada (Natural Regions Committee 2009). Boreal wetlands are characterized by coniferous forests and common wetland types include bogs and fens. This group is divided into High, Mid, Low and Atlantic-Boreal subsets. The Mid-Boreal classification is specific to the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route and is further divided into Continental, Humid and Transitional wetlands.

In the Continental Mid-Boreal Wetland Region, characteristic wetlands are treed bogs and fens occurring on broad flats and in confined basins (Natural Regions Committee 2009). Floating fens and shore swamps may border lakes and ponds. Lodgepole pine may be present on drier, poorer sites and balsam poplar and black spruce are common on wetter, organic sites. Marshes can be found in agricultural areas and along edges of some streams and lakes. The climate varies from cold winters and warm summers in the west to mild winters and cooler summers in the east. Precipitation is high in the east and decreases gradually westward across the country. Peat thickness within the region averages about 4 m thick.

A wetland assessment was conducted on June 21 to 24, 2010 along the proposed pipeline route (see Appendix 3 of this ESA). Aboriginal community representatives from Kelly Lake Cree Nation and Horse Lake First Nation participated in the wetland assessment, and shared their TEK of wetlands in the Project area.

The pipeline route crosses three wetlands, which are identified as two treed bogs in NE/SE 11-68-7 W6M and SW 11-65-7 W6M and a marsh in SW/SE 22-65-7 W6M. The treed bogs traversed by the pipeline route are topographically isolated from the surrounding uplands and the surface water is predominantly derived from precipitation. Peat-accumulating marshes are naturally uncommon in the Project area, but can exist in areas that have been modified (e.g., beaver impoundments, drainage ditching, existing rights- of-way).

The primary function of the treed bogs was determined to be "habitat" providing shelter for ungulates and habitat for migratory birds and upland birds. The secondary function of the treed bogs determined to be "hydrologic" providing surface water storage and groundwater recharge. Wetland functions are reversed for the marsh; the primary function was determined to be "hydrologic" while the secondary function was determined to be "habitat". In the Project area, habitat functions are the functions that benefit wildlife, native plants and other aquatic life. Hydrologic functions are those related to the quantity of water

Page 6-38

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

(primarily snowmelt and rainfall) that enters and is stored for groundwater recharge and water quality functions allow for nutrient availability to plants.

The Aboriginal participants identified three areas of interest with regards to wetlands. The first location is a bog crossed by the right-of-way where it was noted that the better reclamation practice is to allow the wetland vegetation to regenerate naturally, rather than seed with grasses. The two other wetland areas noted to have good wildlife habitat will not be impacted by the Project. Overall, members of Kelly Lake Cree Nation and Horse Lake First Nation have not requested any additional specific mitigation for wetlands on the Project. Additional information regarding the wetlands encountered along the proposed pipeline route is available in the Wetland Assessment (Appendix 3 of this ESA).

Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation The objective of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (“FPWC”) is to promote conservation of Canada's wetlands to sustain their ecological and socio-economic functions. To support this objective, several goals have been established by the FPWC, including:

• "no net loss" of wetland function on federal lands or projects;

• enhancement and rehabilitation of wetlands in areas where the continuing loss or degradation of wetlands or their functions have reached critical level; and

• recognition of wetland functions in resource planning, management and economic decision-making with regard to all federal programs, policies and activity.

NGTL is committed to these goals as well. NGTL has met the intent of the FPWC through avoidance of wetlands and has applied the following decision framework when managing potential effects on wetlands:

• routing the pipeline to avoid wetlands; and

• where avoidance is not technically or economically feasible, implementing construction and reclamation mitigation measures.

6.2.6.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects on wetlands associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline were identified by the Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Horse Lake First Nation and the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.12, along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.12

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON WETLANDS

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Potential alteration Wetlands: Footprint to • Restrict the width of the cleared area if site conditions and • Alteration of of wetland habitat Treed bogs: Local technical constraints permit [Section 8.4]. wetland habitat function (e.g., KP 3.65 – KP 4.15 • Construction has been scheduled to avoid the migratory bird function during and habitat for wildlife, nesting period of May 1 to July 31. following amphibians, KP 36.47 – KP 36.50 construction and • Minimize the removal of vegetation and the disturbance of waterfowl and Marsh: maintenance uplands adjacent to the wetland. vegetation) KP 32.15 – KP 32.17 activities until • Allow wetlands to naturally regenerate following construction. vegetation is Do not seed wetlands [Section 9.0]. re-established.

Page 6-39

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.12 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 2. Potential alteration Wetlands: Footprint to • Schedule construction to avoid periods of high water levels • Alteration of of wetland Treed bogs: Local (i.e., spring and wet weather). wetland hydrologic hydrologic / water KP 3.65 – KP 4.15 • It is anticipated that the wetlands will be dry or frozen at the function during and quality function time of construction. However, if wet or nonfrozen conditions following KP 36.47 – KP 36.50 are present during construction, implement the following construction and Marsh: measures: maintenance KP 32.15 – KP 32.17 - use wide-track equipment or conventional equipment operated from swamp mats to avoid compaction

when working on saturated soils during nonfrozen ground conditions; and - if construction occurs under nonfrozen conditions, replace strippings as soon as possible and re- establish contours within wetland boundaries (no crown remnant) to ensure cross right-of-way drainage is maintained [Section 8.4]. • Restrict the width of the cleared area if site conditions and technical constraints permit, and protect the wetlands by using fencing; clearly mark the wetland boundaries using flagging; and limit traffic in the vicinity of the flagged area [Section 8.4]. • Minimize the disturbance of soils adjacent to the wetlands and conduct grading, where necessary, adjacent to wetlands away from the wetland, to the extent feasible, to reduce the risk of sediment and other material entering the wetland. • Install a shoo-fly around wetlands or construct a subsoil ramp, if approved by appropriate regulatory authorities. • Do not dewater the wetlands. • Use an open cut method to construct the wetland crossings, as per Code of Practice notifications submitted to AENV. • Salvage the total depth of surface organic material along wetland edges to a maximum depth of 40-50 cm. Store salvaged organics separately so that the organic material rather than the underlying silts remain at the surface to prevent restricting future drainage [Section 8.4]. • Install berms, cross ditches and/or silt fences between wetlands and disturbed areas to prevent siltation of surface water. Ensure silt fences have been installed properly, are solid and filter fabric is tight [Section 8.4]. • Install trench breakers, where warranted, at the edge of the wetland to prevent the pipe trench from acting as a drain. • Implement the following measures, where warranted, to maintain natural surface water drainage patterns on upland areas adjacent to wetlands. - Leave gaps in the strippings windrow at obvious drainage courses where strippings replacement and final clean-up are delayed until after spring break-up [Section 8.1]. - Leave breaks in the trench crown at drainages, on sidehill terrain and wherever seepage occurs [Section 9.0]. • The right-of-way will be recontoured to a stable condition as near as possible to its preconstruction condition. Regrade areas with vehicle ruts, or where the trench has settled [Section 9.0]. • Allow wetlands to naturally regenerate following construction. Do not seed wetlands [Section 9.0].

Page 6-40

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.12 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 3. Contamination of Wetlands: Footprint to • Adhere to the following spill prevention measures: prohibit • Potential reduction wetlands from Treed bogs: Local fuel storage, refuelling or servicing of equipment within 100 m of wetland habitat spills or product of wetlands except where secondary containment is provided; function in the release KP 3.65 – KP 4.15 and ensure equipment used for construction in wetlands is event of a spill or KP 36.47 – KP 36.50 well-maintained and free of fluid leaks [Section 8.1]. product release Marsh: • In the event of a spill during construction, immediately during construction implement measures to stop, control the migration of, and or operation. KP 32.15 – KP 32.17 clean-up the spilled substance as outlined in the Spill • Potential reduction Contingency Plan (also Accidents and Malfunctions of wetland Section 6.2.18) [Appendix 8E]. hydrologic and • Do not dispose of petroleum products or waste into water quality waterways or on the ground [Appendices 8E and 8F]. function in the • Ensure that all fuel and service vehicles carry a spill kit event of a spill, [Section 8.1]. (depending on the volume and type of substance spilled) or product release. • See Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.6.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.13 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on wetlands. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below.

TABLE 6.13

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON WETLANDS

Temporal Context

Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Alteration of mineral wetland habitat negative footprint short- isolated short to low high high not significant function during and following to local term long-term construction and maintenance activities until vegetation is re-established. (b) Alteration of hydrologic function of negative footprint short- isolated short- low high high not significant mineral wetlands during and following to local term term construction and maintenance activities. (c) Potential reduction of wetland habitat negative footprint short- accidental short to low to low high not significant and/or hydrologic function and water to local term long-term high quality function in the event of a spill or product release during construction or operation. Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: for all elements evaluated, a significant adverse residual effect is defined as a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Alteration of Wetland Habitat Function Pipeline construction and maintenance activities within wetlands will likely result in some disruption to the habitat function of wetlands. Examples of potential adverse environmental effects on wetland habitat function are: potential changes in species composition; stress on rare plant species; interruption of wildlife

Page 6-41

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 movements; and fragmentation of natural habitats. With proper construction and mitigative measures, these adverse effects can be successfully minimized. For example, Zimmerman and Wilkey (1992) monitored wetlands for effects on vegetation for 20 years following pipeline construction. Findings of these long-term monitoring programs show that: adjacent natural wetland areas were not altered in type; no non-native plant species invaded natural areas; and the right-of-way increased in diversity.

Mitigative measures will be employed to minimize the residual effects on wetlands, depending on site- specific conditions and requirements (Table 6.12 and Appendix 6). With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the potential alteration of wetland habitat function is considered to be reversible in the short to long-term for wetlands depending on original vegetative cover (Table 6.13, point [a]), and of low magnitude.

Alteration of Wetland Hydrologic Function Potential changes to hydrologic flow (i.e., surface or groundwater flow) of a wetland as a result of pipeline construction or maintenance activities may include wetland drainage, water diversion and natural flow impedance. Each of these alterations is an interruption to the natural hydrologic regime and is considered an adverse environmental effect. The vertical and horizontal water movements in wetlands are easily disrupted by any berm-like structure. For example, the effects of roads are especially detrimental to wetland hydrology. The hydraulic conductivity of the wetland's substrate can also be affected by compaction or mixing of the soil structure. Excessive wetland drainage or diversion will result in an unnatural decrease to wetland area while flow impedance (i.e., inadequate drainage) modifies or creates wetland habitat.

Among the most important considerations for limiting disturbances to hydrologic function is assuring that the restoration of preconstruction elevations and contours are achieved (Gartman 1991) and that there will be no unnatural impedance to flow. Short-term disturbances to wetlands are expected during pipeline construction. Some alteration of hydrologic function in wetlands can be expected during trenching, however, the late winter schedule will minimize potential hydrologic changes since water flow is likely to be minimal. Salvage, separate storage and sequential replacement of surface materials at shallow depth (i.e., mineral soils and peats are both encountered within trench depth) is also expected to minimize any potential changes in hydrologic function of wetlands. If the right-of-way in the wetland is restored to its preconstruction profile, the bed and banks of all channels are carefully reconstructed, and proper hydrologic through flow is ensured (i.e., culverts under roads), long-term effects on wetland function are not expected.

Standard pipeline construction and operational activities are designed to avoid circumstances that result in drainage, diversion and/or unnatural retention of water in wetlands. Consequently, the residual effect of the pipeline on wetland hydrology is considered to be reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.13, point [b]).

Effects on Wetlands from Spills or Product Release In the unlikely event of a major fuel spill from equipment or fuel truck near a waterbody, infiltration into surficial deposits and surface water is probable. However, construction through all mineral wetlands and peatlands will take place during frozen conditions and, consequently, the amount of water encountered will be minimized and the speed of migration of any spill into the groundwater will be limited. The implementation of clean-up procedures (Table 6.12 and Appendix 6 of this ESA) is expected to mitigate spot spills in mineral wetlands and peatlands. However, depending on the volume and type of contaminant spilled, it may not be possible to entirely clean up the spill (particularly in mineral wetlands with an open water component). Spill mitigation is expected to result in some loss or disturbance of soil, peat and vegetation. With mitigative efforts (e.g., replacing mineral soil with clean soil, revegetation, avoiding refuelling near wetlands), the residual effects of spills on wetland/peatland habitat function are considered to be reduced to low to medium magnitude and reversible in the short to long-term (Table 6.13, point [c]).

With the design of the pipeline and safety measures implemented to prevent a product release during operation, the likelihood of a product release affecting mineral wetlands or peatlands (via groundwater) is considered highly unlikely. In most cases, a product release is expected to move through the water

Page 6-42

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 column or peat profile of wetlands and peatlands, and be released to the air. Therefore, little or no residual effect to wetland function would occur. In addition, the low probability of such an event results in the determination of residual effects to be not significant (Table 6.13, point [c]).

Additional discussion of accidents and malfunctions is provided in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.18 of this ESA.

6.2.6.4 Summary As identified in Table 6.13, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on wetlands of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on wetlands, and their habitat, hydrologic and water quality functions will be not significant.

6.2.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

6.2.7.1 Ecological Context The proposed pipeline route traverses deciduous, mixedwood and coniferous forest communities typical of the Dry Mixedwood and Central Mixedwood subregions of the Boreal Forest Natural Region. The proposed pipeline route traverses several cutblocks in various stages of regeneration. Terrain is generally level to gently rolling uplands. Moderate slopes are associated with creek and river valleys.

Existing disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Project RSA arise from forestry, oil and gas, and recreational activities. These developments and resource uses have resulted in direct habitat losses and habitat alteration in the Project RSA. Habitat for many of the wildlife species in the vicinity of the pipeline route generally coincides with areas of native vegetation. The loss of native vegetation within the Project RSA directly affects use of native habitats by wildlife and the location, distribution and viability of many species at risk. Some wildlife species have also adapted to, or acclimated to various levels of human activity.

The proposed pipeline route was assessed by TERA and members from the Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis, Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation and Aseniwuche Winewak Nation during a site visit in June 2010. First Nations participants had concerns about a borrow pit near KP 18.7 that was receiving high levels of wildlife use. The borrow pit is located outside of the proposed pipeline right-of-way. First Nations participants identified two grizzly bear rub trees and a heavily used game trail near KP 22.7 and considered these as important habitat features.

One active beaver dam was identified during the wildlife survey near KP 8.0. The beaver dam is located upstream of the proposed pipeline route on an unnamed drainage and is not located within the Project Footprint. Moose were the most commonly observed ungulate species using the area. Riparian areas, deciduous, mixedwood and coniferous forest encountered along the proposed pipeline route provide suitable habitat for several species of songbirds. No locally unique wildlife habitats, mineral licks or mammal dens were identified during the June 2010 wildlife survey. The proposed winter construction schedule will avoid the migratory bird and amphibian breeding period.

Potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat have been reduced by aligning the proposed pipeline route parallel to existing pipeline right-of-way to the extent feasible (approximately 88% of the total length). The fall/winter construction schedule will also avoids critical periods for birds and amphibians.

In the event of an encounter with wildlife during the construction phase of the Project, the Wildlife Encounter Contingency Plan will be implemented (Appendix 6 of this ESA). In the event of a discovery of wildlife species of concern during preconstruction site preparation, the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan will be implemented and appropriate mitigation will be developed (Appendix 6 of this ESA).

Page 6-43

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.7.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures The proposed pipeline has been aligned to follow existing disturbances as much as possible and the (construction) right-of-way width kept to a minimum to the maximum extent feasible. Potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline on wildlife and wildlife habitat were identified by the Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis, Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation and the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.14, along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.14

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Loss or alteration Construction right-of-way Footprint • Wildlife surveys have been conducted to identify important • Areas of wildlife of wildlife habitat habitat features and/or species with special conservation habitat will be status. altered including • Schedule construction during dry or frozen ground conditions forested areas, to minimize habitat disturbance. watercourses, wetlands and The proposed pipeline has been aligned to follow existing • drainage crossings. linear disturbances to the extent feasible (88% of the total length) and the proposed construction right-of-way width kept to a minimum to minimize loss of native vegetation to the maximum reasonable extent. • Do not clear timber, stumps, brush and other vegetation beyond marked construction right-of-way boundaries [Section 8.2]. • Cut / mow / walk down shrubs and small diameter trees at ground level along forested portions of the proposed construction right-of-way and temporary workspace where grading is not required [Section 8.2]. • Salvage and redistribute coarse woody debris and organic materials to provide opportunities for restoring ground hibernation habitat [Section 9.0]. • No vegetation clearing or other construction activities involving heavy equipment are to occur within the migratory bird nesting period from May 1 to July 31. • See Species at Risk Section 6.2.8 of this ESA for discussion regarding loss or alteration of habitat for wildlife species at risk. • Ensure lands with native vegetation are seeded with an appropriate native seed mix or left to naturally regenerate [Section 9.0]. • Clean-up and reclamation should be completed as soon as feasible following construction. • Allow low growing shrubs to re-establish along the proposed construction right-of-way.

Page 6-44

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.14 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 2. Reduction in Construction right-of-way Footprint to • Implement the standard spill prevention measures outlined in • Potential reduction habitat quality due Local Accident and Malfunctions Section 6.2.18 and Appendix 7 in habitat quality to spills or product [Section 6.1] of this ESA. due to spills or release • In the event of a spill, implement the Spill Contingency Plan product release. [Section 1.0 of Appendix 8E]. • Utilize an inert, nontoxic bentonitic clay-based material as drilling mud for HDD watercourse crossing. Implement the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan in the event of a release [Section 8.1]. • Adhere to spill contingency procedures to avoid contaminant introduction to waterbodies during construction [Section 8.1]. • The pipeline design, as well as preventative maintenance procedures, will limit the potential for and volume of a product release in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture during operation. 3. Blockage of wildlife Construction right-of-way Local to • Work expeditiously to maintain a tight construction spread • Temporary changes movements Region (i.e., interval between front end work activities such as to wildlife grading and back end activities such as clean-up) to minimize movement during potential barriers and hazards to wildlife. active construction • Sufficiently sized gaps will be left in all windrows (i.e., period. strippings, snow, if present, and spoil) at all identified access roads and obvious livestock or game trails. Sizing of the gaps will be based on local snow levels, surface contours and potential volume of cross right-of-way traffic. Gaps in set-up pipe and welded pipe will correspond to gaps installed in strippings and spoil windrows. At pipe gaps, temporary ditch plugs will be installed [Section 8.1]. • Complete clean-up and restoration of the proposed construction right-of-way expeditiously. 4. Sensory Construction right-of-way Local to • Prohibit construction personnel from harming, harassing or • Displacement of disturbance of Region feeding wildlife or livestock. Do not allow firearms, pets or wildlife away from wildlife recreational use of all-terrain vehicles on the right-of-way the right-of-way [Section 8.1]. during construction • Work expeditiously to maintain a tight construction spread with resultant use of (i.e., limit interval between front end work activities such as potentially grading and back end activities such as clean-up). suboptimal habitat during noncritical periods. 5. Attraction of Construction right-of-way Footprint to • Garbage will be continuously collected and only disposed of • No residual effects nuisance animals Local at approved facilities. are anticipated. • Wildlife will not be harassed or fed. • Project related nuisance animals will be reported immediately to ASRD as appropriate. • Implement the Wildlife Encounter Contingency Plan in the event of an encounter with wildlife occurring during construction, either on the right-of-way or on the commute to and from the construction site [Section 10.0 of Appendix 8E].

Page 6-45

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.14 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 6. Direct and indirect Construction right-of-way Footprint to • The proposed construction schedule will avoid critical nesting • Potential increase mortality Region period for migratory birds (i.e., May 1 to July 31). in wildlife mortality • Although the proposed pipeline route crosses watercourses rates due to and wetlands that provide potential habitat for western toads, vehicle/wildlife the proposed construction schedule will avoid the prime collisions and amphibian breeding period (i.e., April 1 to May 31). undiscovered habitat during • Establish construction traffic speed limits and post speed construction. limits on access roads to reduce the risk of collisions with wildlife and enforce compliance of Project personnel. • Potential increase in wildlife mortality • Use multi-passenger vehicles to transport workers to and or injury rates could from the work site, to the extent practical. occur in the event • Remove trapped animals from the trench at the start of each of a spill or product day before conducting construction activities which may have release. the potential to harm an animal in the trench. • Shavings produced during pipe end preparations will be collected in a tarp or with a magnetic sweep, and will be removed immediately to ensure that livestock and wildlife do not ingest shavings. • Collect construction garbage daily and dispose of in approved locations to prevent attracting nuisance wildlife. Do not dispose of waste in the trench. • Report scavenging or dangerous wildlife along with the location and details to regional wildlife authorities and, if appropriate, the local police department. • Project-related deaths of wildlife will be reported immediately to ASRD as appropriate. • If stick nests are encountered, the construction right-of-way should be narrowed to leave as large a buffer around the trees with stick nests as possible. Where trees with stick nests cannot be avoided, the trees may be removed if the nests are confirmed to be unoccupied. • To the extent possible, narrow workspace and/or construction right-of-way to avoid wildlife trees. • Implement the Wildlife Encounter Contingency Plan in the event of an encounter with wildlife occurring during construction, either at the site or on the commute to and from the construction site [Section 10.0 of Appendix 8E]. • Implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan should habitat be observed during preconstruction site preparation [Section 9.0 of Appendix 8E]. • In the event of a spill, implement the Spill Contingency Plan [Section 1.0 of Appendix 8E]. • In the event that wildlife injury or mortality is apparent (e.g., during spill containment and clean-up activities), implement the measures outlined in the Wildlife Encounter Contingency Plan, including reporting the injury/mortality to the Environmental Inspector and appropriate regulatory authorities, if warranted [Section 10.0 of Appendix 8E]. • Utilize an inert, nontoxic bentonitic clay-based material as drilling mud for HDD watercourse crossing. Implement the Directional Drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan in the event of a release [Appendix 8E]. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.7.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.15 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below. An

Page 6-46

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 evaluation of significance is not required for those potential effects where no residual effect is identified (i.e., disturbance of migratory bird nests).

TABLE 6.15

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Temporal Context

Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Areas of wildlife habitat will be negative footprint short- isolated medium to low high high not altered including forested areas, term long-term significant watercourses, wetlands and drainage crossings. (b) Potential reduction in habitat quality negative footprint to short- accidental short to low to low high not due to a spill or product release local term long-term high significant during construction of pipeline and operation. (c) Temporary changes to wildlife negative local to short- isolated short-term low high high not movement during active region term significant construction period. (d) Displacement of wildlife away from negative local to short- isolated short-term low high high not the right-of-way during construction region term significant with resultant use of potentially suboptimal habitat during noncritical periods. (e) Potential increase in mortality due to negative footprint to short- isolated short-term low low high not vehicle/wildlife collisions and region term significant undiscovered habitat during pipeline construction. (f) Potential increase in wildlife negative footprint to short- accidental short to low to low high not mortality or injury rates could occur region term long-term high significant in the event of a spill or product release. (g) Combined effects on wildlife habitat. negative footprint to short- isolated long-term medium high high not local term significant (h) Combined effects on local wildlife negative local short to isolated, short to low to high moderate not populations. long- continuous long-term medium significant term Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Wildlife Habitat Alteration or Loss Clearing and construction activities for the pipeline will result in habitat loss and alteration, and the residual effects arising from habitat loss and alteration are considered to have a negative impact balance. Accidents and malfunctions (e.g., spills, HDD drilling mud release, product release during operations) also have the potential to affect wildlife habitat, although the likelihood of these events occurring is considered low. The degree to which wildlife species will be affected by habitat loss or alteration will depend on the amount and type of habitat lost and its use by each species/species group, as well as the size, mobility and home range/territory size of each species. Although the residual effects associated with altered wildlife habitat or reduced wildlife habitat quality due to spills or product release could potentially be long-term and of high magnitude and, therefore, significant, prevention measures (e.g., design of the pipeline to meet all applicable standards and regulations, safety training, appropriate construction methods, ongoing monitoring and preventative maintenance) are expected to reduce the likelihood of a spill or product release having substantial effects to low (Table 6.15, points [a] and [b]).

Page 6-47

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Changes to Wildlife Movement Patterns

Construction Most species will alter their movement to avoid construction areas; however, some may be attracted either during active hours or after hours by curiosity, machine oils and/or garbage. Barriers to wildlife movement will be avoided by maintaining a tight construction spread, leaving gaps in pipe, soil and snow windrows, limiting length of open trench and completing reclamation as soon as practical (Table 6.14). Residual effects associated with temporary changes to wildlife movement patterns during construction or site-specific maintenance activities are reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.15, point [c]).

Operation The pipeline right-of-way 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 clearing within the Footprint, increased forage availability is expected once the vegetation communities begin to regenerate to early seral vegetation (e.g., grasses and potential for greater berry productivity at clearing edges). The residual effect of changes in wildlife movement patterns during operations is reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.15, point [c]).

Displacement of Wildlife Noise arising during construction of the pipeline or site-specific maintenance activities may displace wildlife in the vicinity of the right-of-way. Scheduling of construction activities outside of the migratory bird restricted activity period will substantially minimize the potential to disturb breeding birds.

Due to the linear progression of pipeline construction, construction at any given location along the route will be limited to approximately one month and, therefore, is of short-term duration. Nonetheless, residual effects from sensory impacts (i.e., displacement of wildlife) are expected to occur as a result of construction activities and are considered to have a negative impact balance. With application of the proposed mitigation (Table 6.14), these residual effects are of low magnitude and short-term reversibility (Table 6.15, point [d]).

Mortality The potential increase in the rate of mortality that will occur due to 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 for nesting birds. There is potential for direct mortality during clearing and construction activities of amphibians and small mammal species, particularly small mammals that are less mobile than some of the larger species.

In less frequent situations, collisions with construction vehicles may result in mortality for a wide range of species including the more conspicuous ungulate and carnivore species. Although multi-passenger vehicles will be used to transport crews and vehicle speed will be limited on the roads in the RSA to the pipeline right-of-way as well as on the right-of-way (Construction Traffic Control Management Plan in Appendix 6 of this ESA), a slight increase in potential for vehicle/wildlife collisions may occur during the construction period and, to a lesser extent, during the operation of the pipeline. The application of mitigative measures (Table 6.14 of this ESA) regarding preconstruction wildlife surveys and measures to be taken during construction to reduce the potential for wildlife mortality (e.g., removing trapped animals from the trench, prevent wildlife encounters by appropriate waste handling) will also reduce the potential for wildlife mortality associated with the construction of the pipeline. Construction of the Project is not considered to have the potential for substantial impacts to local wildlife populations as a result of direct mortality. The magnitude of this residual effect is low (Table 6.15, point [e])

Potential wildlife mortality or injury could occur in the event of a spill or product release and the impact balance of this residual effect is considered negative. The scale of the effect is dependent on wildlife exposure, the size, type and location of spill or product release (e.g., ingestion from contaminated

Page 6-48

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 vegetation, mineral soil or water, inhalation of contaminated air). Several contingency plans and emergency response plans will be in place in the event there is a spill or product release (Section 6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions). Depending on the severity and location, and the wildlife species affected, a spill or rupture could be considered to have significant impacts on wildlife mortality either directly or through environmental pathways (e.g., contaminated water). However, the likelihood of wildlife mortality due to a spill or product release is low (Table 6.15, point [f]).

Combined Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat When the combined effects of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat are considered, two combined residual effects are identified: (1) combined effects on wildlife habitat; and (2) combined effects on local or regional wildlife populations. The combined effects evaluation considers the individual potential residual effects evaluated in Section 6.2.7.3 (points [a] through [f] of Table 6.15) that are likely to occur, and could act in combination on the wildlife habitat and local wildlife populations.

Although the magnitude of residual effects on wildlife habitat are of low magnitude when considered individually, the magnitude of combined effects on wildlife habitat is medium since species that may use multiple habitat types could be affected by the effects on forest cover, wetlands, peatlands and riparian habitats. Indirect habitat alteration or loss (e.g., reduced habitat value adjacent to linear corridors; alteration of habitat by changes in vegetation composition adjacent to the Footprint) is not measured quantitatively, but is also considered in the evaluation of combined habitat effects, which increases the overall area of habitat alteration or loss resulting from the Project. These habitat effects, considered in combination, are of medium magnitude and reversible in the long-term (Table 6.15, point [g]).

The combined effects of the Project on local wildlife populations result from both construction activities (isolated, short-term effects) and operation (continuous, long-term effects). In general, the Project does not encounter any identified areas of important habitat (e.g., Ungulate Winter Ranges, mineral licks), habitats for species of concern (e.g., caribou calving areas, trumpeter swan nesting lakes), and the construction schedule avoids sensitive periods (e.g., migratory bird nesting period, spring calving and sensitive late winter periods for ungulates). As a result, the combined effects on local wildlife populations associated with the construction and operation of the Project are considered to be of low to medium magnitude. These effects are reversible in the short-term (construction-related effects) to long-term (operation-related effects) (Table 6.15, point [h]).

6.2.7.4 Summary As identified in Table 6.15, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on wildlife and wildlife habitat will be not significant.

6.2.8 Species at Risk

6.2.8.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects on species at risk associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline were identified by the Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis, Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation and the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.16, along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

Page 6-49

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.16

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON SPECIES AT RISK

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Loss or alteration Construction right-of-way Footprint • ACIMS identified one rare vascular plant (leafy pondweed) in • Due to very low of rare plant 12-2-68-7 W6M, one rare nonvascular plant (bloody-heart habitat potential for species at risk lichen) in 9-6-65-7 W6M and one rare ecological community SARA-listed plant (aspen / thimbleberry / wild sarsaparilla) in 8-12-67-7 W6M species in the (ACIMS 2010a). Project area, no • No COSEWIC or SARA-listed species were found during the residual effect vegetation survey. No species designated under the Alberta identified. Wildlife Act were found during the survey. Six ACIMS-listed rare vascular plant species and one rare nonvascular plant species were observed during the early summer rare plant survey along the proposed pipeline (dainty moonwort, S1; lance-leaved grape fern, S2; northern moonwort, S3; Maclosky's violet, S2S3; golden saxifrage, S3; conic liverwort, S2; ascending grape fern, S2). • During the early summer rare plant survey, one potential ACIMS-listed rare ecological community, an aspen / thimbleberry/ wild sarsaparilla community, was observed in SW 22-65-7 W6M. Further information will be collected from the area during the late summer 2010 survey to confirm the occurrence. • In the event that rare plant species or rare ecological communities are identified during the spring rare plant survey, the Plant Species and Ecological Communities of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan will be implemented and appropriate mitigation will be developed (Section 9.0 of Appendix 8E). 2. Loss or alteration Construction right-of-way Footprint • Based on the wildlife survey conducted, it was determined • Loss of potential of habitat for that the following species that are listed on Schedule 1 of habitat for these wildlife species at SARA or by COSEWIC have potential habitat within the species. risk Project footprint based on species biology and habitat requirements: western toad; common nighthawk; rusty blackbird, grizzly bear, wolverine, Cape May warbler. • Two western toads were observed during the wildlife survey, though no breeding ponds were identified within the Project Footprint. • Evidence of grizzly bear use was observed. Routing has been aligned parallel to existing corridors to mitigate effects related to grizzly bear. • There were no observations of common nighthawk, rusty blackbird, Cape May warbler or wolverine during the survey. • No conspicuously unique or otherwise locally significant site- specific wildlife habitats were identified along the proposed route. • In the event that a wildlife species of concern is observed or a site-specific habitat feature is identified (i.e., active nest or amphibian breeding pond etc.) during preconstruction site preparation (e.g., clearing), implement the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan (Section 10.0 of Appendix 8E). Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6). 6.2.8.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.17 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of the potential residual environmental effect of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on wildlife species at risk. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of the residual environmental effect is provided below.

Page 6-50

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.17

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON SPECIES AT RISK

Temporal Context

Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Loss of potential habitat for species negative footprint to short- isolated to medium- medium high moderate not at risk local term occasional term significant Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Species At Risk

Species at risk (Schedule 1 of SARA or COSEWIC Threatened or Special Concern) identified as having potential habitat within the Project footprint based on the field survey, species biology and habitat requirements are common nighthawk, rusty blackbird, grizzly bear, wolverine and Cape May warbler. The potential residual Project effect identified for these species is the loss or alteration of habitat as a result of clearing. This effect will act cumulatively with existing and future developments that occur in the habitat types used by these species. Application of the recommended measures to mitigate Project effects (e.g., minimizing extra workspace, minimizing grubbing and grading, and allowing regeneration of native vegetation species) will reduce the potential effects related to direct habitat loss. With implementation of the planned mitigation, the residual effects related to direct habitat loss and alteration of habitat on these species are considered to be of low magnitude and reversible in the medium-term (i.e., peatlands) to long-term (i.e., riparian).

6.2.9 Air Quality

6.2.9.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.18 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.18

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON AIR QUALITY

Project Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Residual Effect(s) 1. Airborne emissions Construction right-of- Footprint to • Use well-maintained equipment to minimize emissions. • Increase in GHG from equipment way Region (air • Minimize unnecessary idling of equipment. and air emissions during construction emissions) during construction. • Use multi-passenger vehicles (e.g., crew trucks) to transport and operations Footprint to crew to site to the extent practical to limit the amount of traffic • Increase in GHG International and accompanying emissions. and air emissions (GHG) during site-specific • Adhere to the Traffic Control Management Plan [Section 3.0 maintenance of Appendix 8F] activities and operations

Page 6-51

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.18 Cont'd

Project Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Residual Effect(s) 2. Dust during Construction right-of- Footprint to • Apply water to exposed soil piles if wind erosion occurs. • Potential increase construction and way Local Water is preferred over chemical dust suppressant in dust arising from operations applications. construction traffic on the right-of-way or access roads during pipeline construction. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.9.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.19 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on air quality. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below. Refer to Section 6.2.15 for a discussion of nuisance emissions during construction and emissions during operation on human health.

TABLE 6.19

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ON AIR QUALITY

Temporal Context

Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial (a) Increase in GHG and nuisance air negative internatio short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not emissions during construction. nal significant (b) Increase in GHG and nuisance air negative internatio immediate periodic long-term low high moderate not emissions during site-specific nal to short- significant maintenance activities and operations. term (c) Increase in air-borne dust arising from negative footprint short-term isolated short-term low high high not construction traffic on the right-of-way or to local significant access roads during pipeline construction. Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

The assessment of GHG emissions for the Project was based on the guidance provided in Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Environmental Assessment (CEA Agency 2003). Table A.1 of that document provides examples of the types of projects that are considered to have high and medium GHG emissions (i.e., coal-fired generating plants, petroleum refining and large-scale forest harvesting operations). Since the Project is not anticipated to generate high or medium volumes of GHG emissions during any phase of the Project or adversely affect on a large scale any forest cover or wetlands that may serve as carbon sinks, a detailed quantitative analysis was not considered necessary.

The primary sources of GHG emissions during construction will be from fuel combustion while transporting crews to and from the work site and along the proposed right-of-way, as well as from the operation of heavy equipment required for construction. The removal of trees along the construction right- of-way will adversely affect the localized sequestration of carbon dioxide by the forest. The amount of GHG emissions associated with construction and site-specific maintenance activities will be reduced by utilizing multi-passenger vehicles for the transport of crews to and from job sites to the extent practical, as well as utilizing well-maintained equipment. The potential for reduction in the effectiveness of carbon

Page 6-52

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 sinks and subsequent effect on GHG totals associated with clearing of vegetation will be minimized by following existing linear disturbances and utilizing shared workspace, wherever practical, thereby limiting the amount of clearing necessary. Based on the scope of Project and duration of construction activities, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project will be low and are unlikely to result in a measurable change to national or provincial GHG totals. This residual effect of increased GHG emissions during construction and site-specific maintenance activities is of low magnitude (Table 6.19, elements [a] and [b]).

With respect to increased dust along the proposed right-of-way and on unpaved access roads, this residual effect is confined to construction and reclamation activities completed during relatively dry, nonfrozen conditions. This residual effect is reversible immediately or in the short-term and, as a result of proposed mitigation measures to minimize dust during construction, is of low magnitude (Table 6.19, point [c]).

As identified in Table 6.19, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on air quality of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of the pipeline construction and operation on air quality will be not significant.

6.2.10 Acoustic Environment

6.2.10.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project on the acoustic environment were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.20 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.20

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

Project Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Residual Effect(s) 1. Noise from Construction right-of- Footprint to • Ensure that noise abatement equipment (e.g., mufflers) on • Increase in construction way Local machinery is in good working order to control construction nuisance noise equipment and related noise near residential areas. Alter equipment, erect during construction. operations and noise barriers, or change the work schedule if excessive maintenance noise becomes a nuisance to nearby trappers and outfitters activities [Section 8.1]. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.10.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.21 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on the acoustic environment. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below.

Page 6-53

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.21

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ON ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

Temporal Context

Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Increase in nuisance noise during negative footprint short-term isolated short-term low high high not construction of pipeline. to local significant Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated.

Noise During Construction Noise arising from Project construction activities will occur. However, the residual effects of a short-term increase in noise will be limited to areas in proximity to human receptors (e.g., trappers and outfitters). The nearest permanent residence to the Project is approximately 1,500 m away. Construction equipment and vehicles will be equipped with noise abatement equipment (e.g., mufflers). The residual effect of construction noise is reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.21, point [a]).

6.2.10.3 Summary As identified in Table 6.21, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect on the acoustic environment of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of construction and operation of the pipeline on the acoustic environment will be not significant.

6.2.11 Human Occupancy and Resource Use

6.2.11.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects on human occupancy and resource use associated with the construction and operation of the plant were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.22 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.22

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Component Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effects 1. Disruption of Construction Footprint • The pipe will be buried with an adequate depth of cover to allow traffic • Potential for outfitting / right-of-way to Local associated with current land use to cross the right-of-way during normal disruption of hunting / conditions. outfitting/hunting/trap trapping • Delay final staking until immediately prior to construction. ping activities during construction. activities • Final clean-up will be completed as soon as practical to minimize during disturbance of local hunters/trappers and outfitting operations [Section 9.0]. construction

Page 6-54

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.22 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Component Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effects 2. Reduction in Forested Footprint • Contact all disposition holders related to these land uses and negotiate • Reduction in land forestry land areas to Local contracts [Section 5.0]. base for timber base • Employ mitigative measures related to Section 6.2.8 Vegetation and harvest during Section 6.2.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. construction and operation. • Minimize the amount of new construction right-of-way by utilizing previously disturbed areas as much as possible. • Continue consultation and co-ordination with forestry licensees and appropriate provincial governments. • Follow the Construction Traffic Control Management Plan [Appendix 8F]. • Co-ordinate with forestry operators active in the construction area. • Co-ordinate with forestry operators to ensure construction does not encroach on permanent sample plots [Section 5.0]. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.11.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.23 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual socio-economic effects of the construction and operation of the plant on human occupancy and resource use. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual socio-economic effects is provided below.

TABLE 6.23

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF THE PROJECT ON HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Disruption of outfitting / trapping / hunting negative footprint to short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant activities may occur during construction. region (b) Reduction in land base for timber harvest negative footprint short-term isolated long-term low high high not significant during construction and operation. Note: 1 Significant Residual Socio-economic Effect: A residual socio-economic effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be: - high magnitude, high probability, short-term- reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated; or - high magnitude, high probability, long-term reversibility and any geographic extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated.

Outfitting, Hunting and Trapping Hunting and trapping activities by land users, occur along the proposed pipeline route and throughout the RSA. Activities associated with construction, including the proposed right-of-way clearing and clean-up, may affect these resource users in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. The impact balance of this residual effect is considered negative. Effects should be managed by advanced notification of construction schedule and consultation. Construction and clean-up activities will overlap with hunting seasons and trapping activities. If deemed appropriate, compensation will be provided to land users where a direct interruption of use of the land (e.g., disruption of outfitting activities), as a result of pipeline construction, has occurred. Operational activities are not expected to affect outfitting, hunting or trapping. The disruption of outfitting, hunting and trapping activities is considered to be reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.23, point [a]).

Page 6-55

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Reduction in Land Base for Timber Harvesting Clearing of forested areas will occur along portions of the proposed construction right-of-way. All of the clearing will occur along Crown lands in Alberta. As a result, there will be slightly less land available for harvesting forestry resources for the life of the Project, estimated to be 40+ years. A Timber Salvage Plan identifies arrangements between license holders, forestry agencies and NGTL for timber removal. Areas cleared for temporary uses will be reclaimed to ensure there is capacity to sustain merchantable timber on site after completion of the temporary use. Upon abandonment, the land will be available for forestry use. The impact balance of this residual effect is considered negative. The residual effect of the disruption of forestry activities and loss of land available for forestry use is considered to be of low magnitude and reversible in the long-term, since upon abandonment, the Footprint is expected to revegetate and the loss of the land base of forest harvesting will be restored (Table 6.23, point [b])

Summary As identified in Table 6.23 of this ESA, there are no situations for human occupancy and resource use that meet the criteria of a significant residual socio-economic effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of Project construction and operation on human occupancy and resource use will be not significant.

6.2.12 Heritage Resources

6.2.12.1 Context The proposed development is located on lands listed as having no Historical Resource Value (HRV) for archaeological resources in the current Listing of Historic Resources (ACCS 2010). Due to the proposed crossing of numerous drainages and undisturbed regions with no known prior HRIA having been done in direct association with the Project area, it was determined there was a high potential for archaeological sites, and an HRIA of the proposed Project Footprint was necessary and was carried out. There were no historical resources identified in conflict with the proposed Project.

6.2.12.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures The potential for encountering heritage resources is minimized by aligning the pipeline route to parallel existing linear disturbances to the extent feasible. No archaeological concerns were identified in conflict with the proposed route.

Potential effects on heritage resources associated with the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.24 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.24

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON HERITAGE RESOURCES

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Component Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effects 1. Disturbance of Construction Footprint • An HRIA was conducted along the pipeline route in summer, 2010. No • Previously previously right-of-way impacts to historical resources were identified. unidentified buried unidentified • Where previously unidentified historical, archaeological or heritage resources heritage palaeontological resources are encountered during construction, may be disturbed resource sites implement the Heritage Resource Discovery Contingency Plan during during [Section 13.0 of Appendix 8E]. No further construction will be construction. construction undertaken in the immediate vicinity. Construction activity will not commence until permission to proceed has been granted by ACCS. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

Page 6-56

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.12.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.25 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual socio-economic effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on heritage resources. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual socio-economic effects is provided below.

TABLE 6.25

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ON HERITAGE RESOURCES

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Previously unidentified buried heritage negative footprint short-term isolated permanent low low high not resources may be disturbed during significant construction. Notes: 1 Significant Residual Socio-Economic Effect: A residual socio-economic effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be: - high magnitude, high probability, short-term reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated; or - high magnitude, high probability, long-term reversibility and any Spatial Context that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Disturbance to Heritage Resource Sites Heritage resources provide a window into past human experiences and by their very nature, are non- renewable and once disturbed the resource may be altered or even lost. Consequently, the primary mitigative measure in protecting heritage resources is avoidance. Yet, to further the understanding of the past, disturbing the cultural resources through excavations is an acceptable practice for archaeologists and, in many cases, the only method to collect in situ information, to add to the archaeological record. Regardless of whether the excavation of the site is for academic or development purposes, the loss of heritage resource sites is generally offset by the recovery of knowledge about the site gained through meticulous identifying, cataloguing, and preserving of artefacts and features in compliance with provincial guidelines.

Should any previously unidentified buried sites be encountered during construction, activity at that site will be stopped and the Heritage Resources Discovery Contingency Plan will be implemented. Since knowledge of the site will be recovered prior to resumption of construction activity, the addition of information to the archaeological record is viewed as generally compensating for the loss of heritage resources and the magnitude is considered low (Table 6.25, point [a]).

6.2.12.4 Summary As identified in Table 6.25, there are no situations for heritage resources that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on heritage resources will be not significant.

6.2.13 Traditional Land and Resource Use NGTL has initiated consultation with Aboriginal Communities with interest in the Project. TLU work is ongoing and will be completed with all remaining groups who express an interest in fall 2010.

6.2.13.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects on traditional land and resource use associated with the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline were identified by Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society,

Page 6-57

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation, Métis Local 1994 (Grande Cache), Aseniwuche Winewak Nation and the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.26 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects. TABLE 6.26

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Site-specific Entire route Footprint to • Should any site-specific concerns arise during the ongoing • Site-specific traditional land use Local engagement process, NGTL will attempt to resolve these traditional land use issue using company mandated protocol and policies. identified during • Use the Plant Species and Ecological Communities of ongoing Concern Discovery Contingency Plan, Wildlife Species of consultation may Concern Discovery Contingency Plan, Fish Species of be affected during Concern Discovery Contingency Plan, Heritage Resource construction and Discovery Contingency Plan and Traditional Land Use operation. Contingency Plan as a guide when developing mitigation strategies for any site-specific features identified during the consultation process [Appendix 8E]. 2. Disruption of Entire route Footprint to • Provide Aboriginal Communities with proposed construction • Disruption of subsistence Local schedule and pipeline route maps, and install signs notifying subsistence hunting, fishing groups of construction activities in the vicinity [Section 5.0]. hunting, fishing and and trapping • See Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Table 6.14 for measures trapping may occur regarding displacement of wildlife. during construction. • See Fish and Fish Habitat Table 6.10 for measures regarding potential residual effects on fish and fish habitat. • See to Human and Occupancy Table 6.22 for measures regarding hunting, trapping and fishing activities. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.13.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.27 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual socio-economic effects of the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline on traditional land and resource use. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual socio-economic effects is provided below.

TABLE 6.27

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ON TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Site-specific TLU identified during negative footprint short-term isolated short-term low low high not ongoing consultation may be affected to local significant during construction and operation. (b) Disruption of subsistence hunting may negative footprint short-term isolated short-term negligible low high not occur during construction. to local to low significant Notes: 1 Significant Residual Socio-Economic Effect: A residual socio-economic effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be: - high magnitude, high probability, short-term reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated; or - high magnitude, high probability, long-term reversibility and any Spatial Context that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Site-Specific TLU TLU studies have been initiated with the Kelly Lake Cree Nation, Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society, Nose Creek First Nation, Horse Lake First Nation, Métis Local 1994 (Grande Cache) and Aseniwuche

Page 6-58

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Winewak Nation who have expressed interest to participate. Consultation with Aboriginal communities is on-going and TLU studies will continue into fall of 2010. Should TLU sites be identified, the mitigative measures outlined in Table 6.26 of this ESA and the Contingency Plan for TLU Sites Identified during Construction (Appendix 6) will be implemented. This residual effect is expected to be reversible in the short to long-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.27, point [a]).

Subsistence Hunting Hunting is carried out in the area by local First Nation groups. Concerns associated with the Project have been identified during meetings and consultations held for the Project. In general, the Project area is used by resident hunters. The residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of negligible to low magnitude (Table 6.27, point [b]).

6.2.13.3 Summary As identified in Table 6.27, there are no situations for traditional land and resource use that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on traditional land and resource use will be not significant.

6.2.14 Social and Cultural Well-Being

6.2.14.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects on social and cultural well-being associated with the construction and operation of the Project were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.28 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.28

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Component Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures Effects 1. Decrease in Grande Region • Use only commercial hotels and motels to accommodate the temporary workforce in • No residual availability of Prairie Grande Prairie to ensure private rental accommodation will not be needed. effects identified. rental • Liaise with hotel owners in advance of Project construction to secure needed commercial accommodation in accommodation. Grande Prairie • If some of the reserved commercial hotels and motels are not needed, request the contractor to release the rooms for use by other users of commercial accommodation. 2. Disruption of Grande Region • Implement NGTL's Code of Conduct for all Project workers. • Disruption of community life Prairie • Do not tolerate drug use and illegal activities by the workforce. community life • During worker orientation, stress the requirement for respectful use of community facilities and the need for respectful behaviour while temporarily residing in Grande Prairie. • Adherence to NGTL's Health, Safety and Environment Commitment Statement. 3. Availability of jobs Entire route Region • Construction of the Project will generate the need for goods, services and workers. • Increased and business contracting opportunities procurement and job opportunities.

6.2.14.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.29 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual socio-economic effects of the construction and operation of the Project on social and cultural well-being. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual socio-economic effects is provided below.

Page 6-59

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.29

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE ON SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING

Temporal Context

Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Disruption of community life. negative region short-term isolated short-term medium high low not significant

(b) Increased contracting procurement and positive local to short-term isolated N/A low high high not significant job opportunities. region Notes: 1 Significant Residual Socio-economic Effect: A residual socio-economic effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be: - high magnitude, high probability, short-term- reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated; or - high magnitude, high probability, long-term reversibility and any geographic extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated.

Community Life It is expected that the Project construction workforce will be working extended hours, which will not leave a substantial amount of time for recreational activities after work hours. It is also expected that some of the workforce will be local. However, regardless of work hours, NGTL's policies and commitments with respect to health and safety, and the provision of recreation activities for workers, it is not always possible to prevent adults from engaging in certain behaviours when they are on their time off and not on the job. The adverse residual effect of disruption of community life by transient workers is anticipated to be of medium magnitude due to the importance the city has placed on the issue of transient workers and due to the possibility that these effects are approaching the general standards of tolerance for this community. The degree of confidence is low due to the difficulty in predicting human behaviour (Table 6.29, point [a]).

Availability of Jobs and Business Opportunities for Local People Construction of the Project will generate a demand for goods, services and workers. There will be direct and indirect business and employment opportunities as well as direct and indirect income and employment effects. During construction, the residual effect on local employment opportunities is considered to be positive. The duration will be short-term, since most employment opportunities will occur during construction. Some permanent employment may occur during operation. The effect of employment is considered to be of low magnitude since the scope of the Project is relatively small. Reversibility of the impact is not applicable (Table 6.29, point [b]).

Summary As identified in Table 6.29, there are no situations with regard to social and cultural well-being that meet the criteria for significant residual socio-economic effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on social and cultural well-being will be not significant.

6.2.15 Human Health

6.2.15.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.30 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

Page 6-60

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.30

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON HUMAN HEALTH

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Component Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effects 1. Disruption of Entire route Footprint • Employ the measures outlined in Table 6.2 for the Physical Environment element in the • The Project may normal, daily living to Region event that contaminated soils are encountered during construction, and spill prevention disrupt normal, activities measures in Table 6.36 for the Accidents and Malfunctions element to avoid exposure of daily living workers to harmful substances. activities of some land users. • Employ the measures outlined in Table 6.8 for the Water Quality and Quantity element related to reduction of surface water quality during construction. • Employ measures outlined in Table 6.18 for the Air Quality element related to increased airborne emissions from vehicles and equipment as well as dust and noise during construction and operation. • Employ measures outlined in Table 6.20 for the Acoustic Environment element related to increased noise during construction and operation. 2. Public safety Entire route Footprint • The following measures will be implemented during the construction phase: • The Project may to Region - use of high quality steel and welding techniques; affect the health of land users in the - welds checked by ultrasonic inspection or x-ray to ensure they are sound; event of an - pipeline will be fusion bonded epoxy coated to protect it against corrosion; and accident or - pipeline will be tested prior to operation and if a leak occurs during testing, the malfunction. affected section of the pipe will be replaced. • The following measures will be implemented during the operation phase: - aerial surveillance; - cover surveys; - cathodic protection; - 24 hours a day monitoring from a computerized gas control centre; and - investigative digs. • The pipeline design, valves along the proposed construction right-of-way, as well as preventative maintenance procedures, will limit the potential for a product release in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture during operation. • Ensure strict adherence to operating and maintenance procedures that substantially reduce the likelihood of an incident occurring. • NGTL will implement their comprehensive ERP. • Employ measures outlined in Accidents and Malfunctions Table 6.36 related to fire prevention during construction to avoid potential injury to workers as a result of a fire. Adhere to NGTL's protocols related to safety in the event of a fire during construction. • Employ the measures outlined in Accidents and Malfunctions Table 6.36 to prevent damage to foreign lines and potential exposure of workers to harmful substances. • If necessary, follow the procedures for handling Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) during maintenance activities outlined in NGTL's NORM Exposure Control TOP (#0038945078). Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.15.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.31 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual socio-economic effects of the construction and operation of the Project on human health. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual socio-economic effects is provided below.

Page 6-61

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.31

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF THE PROJECT ON HUMAN HEALTH

Temporal Context

Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) The Project may disrupt normal, daily negative local to short-term isolated short term medium high moderate not significant living activities of some land users. region (b) The Project may affect the health of land negative local to long-term accidental long-term low to low high not significant users and workers in the event of an region high accident or malfunction.

Notes: 1 Significant Residual Socio-economic Effect: A residual socio-economic effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be: - high magnitude, high probability, short-term- reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated; or - high magnitude, high probability, long-term reversibility and any geographic extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated.

Daily Living Activities Residual effects which have been identified as potentially disrupting normal daily living activities of some land users (i.e., hunters) during construction include: increased nuisance air emissions; increased noise; disruption of land use activities and associated inconvenience; disruption of local traffic patterns; and increased traffic volumes. Similar residual effects may occur during some maintenance activities.

NGTL has a variety of procedures, plans and protocols pertaining to the planning, construction and operation of the Project. It is anticipated that for most land users along the proposed route, these strategies will aid in limiting the disruption that is experienced as a result of construction and operation activities. However, for some land users, despite the provisions made, concerns regarding the Project and its affect on daily living activities during construction and operational maintenance activities may remain. In these cases, the overall compensation package is the only economic or technically feasible means of dealing with local effects for projects deemed to be in the interest of the broader public. Given the procedures, plans and protocols in place as well as the overall compensation package, the residual effect is of low magnitude. Residual effects such as nuisance noise during construction are reversible in the short-term (Table 6.31, point [a]).

Accidents or Malfunctions Human health effects can potentially occur as a result of a product release due to a pipeline leak or failure. Since pipeline leaks generally release quantities of gas that are insufficient to produce adverse human health effects and pipeline leaks should be identified in a timely manner, only accidental pipeline failures are considered.

During the operation and maintenance of the Project, a combination of incident prevention measures, safety devices and emergency response planning and procedures will be implemented to prevent a pipeline failure/rupture and ensure public safety. NGTL's strict adherence to a high standard of design, as well as the comprehensive construction, operation and maintenance procedures will reduce the risks of operating a natural gas pipeline. The pipeline will be monitored 24-hours per day, and a regular visual maintenance procedure will be implemented. NGTL also commits to conducting its business to meet or exceed all applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, the company's Integrated Public Awareness Program will be implemented upon completion of construction. This program is intended to help ensure ongoing stakeholder communication and issue-resolution during operation.

Pipelines are considered the safest and most efficient method of transporting large volumes of natural gas products over long distances. Although health effects in the event of a pipeline failure/rupture could

Page 6-62

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

potentially be significant, the probability of occurrence of health effects is low. Therefore, it is unlikely that a pipeline failure/rupture with resultant human health effects will occur over the lifetime of the Project (Table 6.31, point [b]).

6.2.15.3 Summary As identified in Table 6.31, there are no situations for human health that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on human health will not be significant.

6.2.16 Infrastructure and Services

6.2.16.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects on infrastructure and services associated with the construction and operation of the Project were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.32 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

TABLE 6.32

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Component Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effects 1. Transport of Construction Footprint • Transport workers from the muster areas to work sites by multi-passenger • Increased traffic workers and right-of-way to Region vehicles (e.g., crew trucks) to the extent practical. on highways and supplies during • Advise all project-related vehicles to follow applicable traffic, road-use and safety local roads used construction laws. to access the and operation project during • Implement the Traffic Control Management Plan [Section 3.0 of Appendix 8F]. construction. 2. Disruption of Construction Footprint • Locate and flag all existing buried utility lines and cables to be traversed by the • See Accidents transmission right-of-way to Region pipeline prior to the commencement of ground disturbance activities by using and Malfunctions lines and "one call" services or direct contact with utility owners [Section 6.0]. Section 6.2.18. pipelines • Expose all underground utility lines and cables to be traversed by the pipeline in accordance with prescribed methods as detailed in the construction specifications. • Use flagging and signage at overhead line crossings to alert equipment operators of hazards. 3. Waste Construction Local to • Adhere to the Waste Management Plan [Section 1.0 of Appendix 8F]. • Temporary right-of-way management Region • Collect waste from work site on a daily basis to avoid the attraction of nuisance increase in waste during animals. Ensure waste containers accompany each working unit. Do not dispose flow to regional construction of waste in the trench. landfill sites will and operations occur. • Locate temporary toilets at convenient locations on/along the construction right- of-way. • Ensure the construction site is left in a tidy and organized condition at the end of each day. • Transport and dispose all wastes in accordance with provincial and federal regulatory requirements and local guidelines. • Follow criteria and regulations set out by WHMIS and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods. 4. Commercial Grande Local to • Liaise with hotel owners far in advance of Project construction to secure the • Change in accommodation Prairie Region needed accommodation for the anticipated small workforce. availability of availability • If some of the reserved accommodation is not needed, NGTL will request that the local contractor allow accommodations be released for use by other potential accommodation commercial accommodation customers. during construction.

Page 6-63

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.32 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Component Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effects 5. Provision of Construction Local to • Provide key contact numbers, pipeline route maps and the construction schedule • Reduced capacity emergency right-of-way Region to the local and regional RCMP, fire departments, hospitals/medical facilities and of existing services ambulance services. emergency • Contact local emergency medical services to ensure that services can be used if services to necessary. accommodate • Note that emergency medical airlift (STARS) is available in all areas of Alberta. Project needs in the event of an • Adhere to all safety standards during the construction and operation of the incident. pipeline. • Ensure contractors provide First Aid attendants. • Contingency and management plans have been developed including the Spill Contingency Plan, Fire Contingency Plan and the Traffic Control Management Plan [Sections 1.0 and 5.0 of Appendix 8E and Section 3.0 of Appendix 8F].

Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.16.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.33 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual socio-economic effects of the construction and operation of the Project on infrastructure and services. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual socio-economic effects is provided below.

TABLE 6.33

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF THE PIPELINE ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Increased traffic on highways and local negative local to short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant roads used to access the Project will region occur during construction. (b) Temporary increase in waste flow to negative local to short-term isolated short-term low to high high not significant regional landfill sites will occur during region medium construction and operation. (c) Change in availability of local negative local to short-term isolated short-term low to high high not significant accommodation during construction of region medium pipeline and associated facilities. (d) Change in capacity of existing emergency negative local to short-term isolated short-term low low high not significant services to accommodate Project needs. region Notes: 1 Significant Residual Socio-economic Effect: A residual socio-economic effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be: - high magnitude, high probability, short-term- reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated; or - high magnitude, high probability, long-term reversibility and any geographic extent that cannot be mitigated or compensated.

Increased Traffic on Highways and Local Roads Alteration of traffic patterns, movements and volumes during construction along major highways and local roads is an unavoidable residual effect. Mitigative measures such as, using multi-passenger vehicles and obeying traffic, road-use and safety laws, will be implemented during pipeline construction activities. The residual effect of construction activities on traffic movements is considered to be of low magnitude (Table 6.33, point [a]).

Page 6-64

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Temporary Increase in Waste Flow NGTL will reduce waste quantities to the lowest levels practical through Project design. All waste generated from the Project during construction will be hauled to the appropriate landfill sites in the region depending on the type of waste. Receptacles for recycling various products (e.g., paper, cardboard, glass, tin, etc.) will be available at the construction offices and will be hauled to appropriate recycling depots. This residual effect is of short-term reversibility and of low to medium magnitude (Table 6.33, point [b]).

Accommodation Availability During Construction Pipeline construction crews, company personnel and regulatory inspectors will require lodging communities in the RSA (i.e., Grande Prairie) during construction of the proposed pipeline. Project construction will take place during winter 2010l. Given the higher vacancy rates in the summer (compared to winter during heightened oil and gas activity) accommodation requirements are not expected to displace tourists and will likely provide welcome revenue. Regardless, early co-ordination of the commercial accommodation needs will be conducted to ensure necessary rooms are available. If reserved accommodations are not required for the job, contractors will be requested to consider releasing unneeded rooms. This residual effect is reversible in the short-term and of low to medium magnitude (Table 6.33, point [c]).

Change in Capacity of Existing Emergency Services NGTL is committed to constructing the proposed pipeline in a safe and responsible manner. There are several contingency plans, management plans and systems either in place or that will be in place to prevent accidents and minimize risk of injury to workers during construction. The plans include the Emergency Response, Spill Contingency and Fire Contingency plans. The ERP will be developed in consultation with local emergency providers to ensure that roles and responsibilities are understood and that the necessary resources required to respond are in place. All workers and visitors to the job site will have to participate in safety orientation, and upon successful completion, display the valid safety sticker on their hardhat before permission to access the job site is granted. Safety issues will be discussed during daily onsite tailgate meetings.

Despite these measures and best intentions, incidents during the construction phase may arise in which emergency services are required (e.g., ambulance, fire, police and hospital). Grande Prairie has services to respond to emergency situations that may arise during construction of the pipeline. Given the proximity of the proposed pipeline to this community and to local grid roads and highways, it is conservatively estimated that response to an emergency would likely take no longer than 30-45 minutes from any point along the proposed route Depending on the seriousness of the incident, air ambulance services are available (based in Grande Prairie, Alberta). If an incident does occur, given the extensive implementation of safety and mitigation measures, it is expected to be localized or of low relative magnitude.

The residual effect of potentially using emergency services during the short-term construction period is of low magnitude and low probability. The degree of confidence is low since it is difficult to predict whether an emergency event will occur or not (Table 6.33, point [d]).

Summary As identified in Table 6.33 there are no situations with regard to infrastructure and services that meet the criteria of a significant residual socio-economic effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of Project construction and operation on infrastructure and services will not be significant.

Page 6-65

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.17 Employment and Economy

6.2.17.1 Potential Effects and Enhancement Measures Potential effects on employment and economy associated with the construction and operation of the Project were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.34 along with a summary of measures recommended to enhance the potential effects.

TABLE 6.34

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Component Boundary Recommendations / Mitigative Measures Effects 1. Contract Entire route Region • Early consultation with local contractors in affected communities regarding • Increased procurement business opportunities and procurement practices. contract • Continue to work with First Nations to determine details of their participation in procurement the project. opportunities. • 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. 2. Employment Entire route Region • Local motel, gas station, hardware and restaurant owners will receive increased • Local opportunities business during the construction season. Some of the construction businesses and subcontractors may be local or employ local labourers. residents will • No increase or decrease in local business opportunities or employment is benefit from the anticipated during the operational phase. Project through employment • NGTL is committed to a procurement program that actively promotes local opportunities. opportunity, including Aboriginal businesses. 3. Revenue Entire route Region • Revenue payments by NGTL are substantial and are considered beneficial by • The Project will governments. generate revenue for provincial and federal governments.

6.2.17.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.35 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual socio-economic effects of the construction and operation of the proposed Project on employment and economy.

Page 6-66

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.35

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Increased contract procurement positive local to short-term isolated N/A low high high not opportunities. region significant (a) Increased contract procurement positive local to short-term isolated N/A low high high not opportunities. region significant (b) Local businesses and residents will positive local to short-term isolated short-term low high high not benefit from the Project through region significant employment opportunities. (c) The Project will generate revenue for positive region to short-term isolated short-term low high high not provincial and federal governments. national significant Note: 1 Significant Residual Socio-Economic Effect: A residual socio-economic effect is considered significant if the effect is predicted to be: high magnitude, high probability, short-term reversibility and regional, provincial or national in extent that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated; or high magnitude, high probability, long-term reversibility and any Spatial Context that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Contracting Procurement and Job Opportunities Construction of the Project will generate a demand for goods, services and workers. There will be direct and indirect business and employment opportunities, as well as direct and indirect income and employment effects.

It is expected that NGTL will make every effort to source all required services, equipment, materials and supplies within Canada. Suppliers from outside Canada will be used only where no Canadian supply is available or where Canadian suppliers cannot meet Project delivery schedules. Construction contracting opportunities will be provided to qualified competitive local business wherever possible. Contracts and contracting opportunities will be designed to encourage and promote local and Aboriginal businesses and to promote local hiring. Some contracts will be set aside for pre-screening and to promote local hiring. Some contracts will be set aside for pre-screened Aboriginal-owned businesses and guidelines for local hiring will be included in all contracts.

The operation of the pipeline is expected to result in some new full-time positions. Qualified local contractors will be hired for maintenance activities. The economic effects of operation have not been quantified, but are expected to be positive.

During preconstruction, positive residual effects have already been realized related to employment and economy. During construction, the residual effect on contract procurement and job opportunities is considered to be positive, as is the residual effect of the Project on employment and economy during operation (Table 6.35, points [a], [b]).

Revenue Construction of the pipeline will generate a demand for goods, services and workers. There will be direct and indirect business income and direct and indirect employment income. There will also be increased tax revenues. These residual effects are considered to be positive, reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude.

During all phases of the Project, the residual effects related to provincial and national revenues are considered to be positive, reversible in the long-term and of low magnitude (Table 6.35, point [c]).

Page 6-67

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.2.17.3 Summary As identified in Table 6.35, while all identified residual effects for employment and economy are positive, there are no situations for employment and economy that meet the criteria of a significant residual socio- economic effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of Project construction and operation on employment and economy will be not significant.

6.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions

6.2.18.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures Potential effects associated with the accidents and malfunctions during construction and operation of the proposed pipeline were identified by the assessment team. These potential effects are listed in Table 6.36 along with a summary of measures recommended to mitigate the potential effects.

Page 6-68

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.36

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS DURING PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Spill of hazardous Construction right-of- Footprint to Spill Prevention • Inadvertent spills way materials during Local • Place an impervious tarp when servicing equipment/vehicles or product release construction with the potential for accidental spills (e.g., oil changes, could result in servicing of hydraulic systems). contamination or alteration of: • Ensure that no fuel, lubricating fluids, methanol, hydraulic fluids, antifreeze, herbicides, biocides or other chemicals are -soil productivity dumped on the ground or into any watercourse. (Soil and Soil Productivity Ensure that bulk fuel trucks, service vehicles and pick-up • Section 6.2.2); trucks equipped with box-mounted fuel tanks carry spill prevention, containment and clean-up materials that are -vegetation suitable for the volume of fuels or oils carried. Carry spill (Vegetation contingency material on bulk fuel and service vehicles that is Section 6.2.3); suitable for use on land and water (i.e., sorbent pads, sorbent -surface or boom and rope). Carry additional spill prevention and clean- groundwater up material, and equipment such as tarp, shovel and heavy quality (Water plastic bags in bulk fuel trucks, service trucks and pick-ups Quality and with box-mounted fuel tanks. Quantity • Do not store fuel, oil or hazardous material within 100 m of a Section 6.2.3); watercourse, waterbody or wetland except where secondary -wetlands containment is provided. (Wetlands Section 6.2.4); • Inspect hydraulic, fuel and lubrication systems of equipment and used in water crossing construction to ensure that the systems are in good condition and free of leaks. Clean -wildlife and equipment to be used instream or adjacent to a watercourse wildlife habitat or otherwise ensure equipment is free of grease, oil or other (Wildlife and fluids, mud, dirt and vegetation, both prior to and upon Wildlife Habitat entering the waterbody and upon completion of instream Section 6.2.7). activity. In the Event of a Spill • Report spill immediately to the Environmental Inspector and, if warranted, appropriate government agencies in accordance with the Spill Contingency Plan [Section 1.0 of Appendix 8E]. • Implement the Spill Contingency Plan. The plan includes measures to be undertaken in the event of a spill on land, ice and in water [Section 1.0 of Appendix 8E]. Operation - Product Release • The pipeline design and placement of valves along the pipe will limit the potential for and volume of a product release that could contaminate the surrounding environment in the event of a pipeline leak or rupture during operation. • During operation and maintenance, a combination of incident prevention measures, safety devices and emergency response planning and procedures will be implemented to ensure public safety and prevent environmental damage.

Page 6-69

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.36 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 2. Fire during Construction right-of- Footprint to Fire Prevention • Despite vigilance, construction and way Local • Require all contractor personnel to participate in a safety and fires may adversely operation environmental training session that will include instruction on affect adjacent the use of fire fighting equipment. vegetation and in • Ensure that personnel are made aware of proper disposal very rare situations, methods for welding rods, cigarette butts and other hot or affect wildlife and burning material. adjacent property. • Do not smoke in the open on the proposed construction right- of-way when the fire hazard is high. Smoke only within vehicles at these times. • Maintain a water truck on the proposed construction right-of- way when fire hazard is high or extreme and air temperatures allow. • Ensure that exhaust and engine systems of equipment are in good working condition and inspect undercarriages periodically to ensure that grasses do not accumulate. Do not leave vehicles idling for extended periods of time when the fire hazard is high and do not park on tall grass. • Ensure that slash burning crews have fire-fighting equipment on hand that is capable of controlling any fire that may occur as a result of their activities as regulated by provincial regulations and government agencies. • Do not burn slash if the fire hazard is high. If burning is delayed, store slash along the proposed construction right-of- way, in natural clearing or approved push-outs. Resume burning once the fire hazard is low. • If warranted, conduct aerial infrared surveys of burn piles. In the Event of a Fire • Follow the fire suppression measures of the Fire Contingency Plan [Section 5.0 of Appendix 8E]. Fire During Operation • Implement the above procedures, as applicable, during operation and maintenance activities. 3. Damage to foreign Construction right-of- Footprint to • Locate and flag all known foreign lines and cables by using • Rupture of utility utilities during way Local Alberta One-Call services [Section 6.0]. lines could lead to construction and • Carefully expose all known location of underground facilities interruption of operation in accordance with prescribed, safe methods. services, contamination of • Use flagging and signage at overhead line crossings to alert soil or water equipment operators of hazards. depending on the • Conduct construction activities in the vicinity of adjacent location and pipelines in compliance with all requirements of CSA Z662 severity of the and the NEB OPRs for work close to an operating pipeline. rupture and fires in • Prior to any equipment working on, or crossing over, an the case of gas. adjacent pipeline, first obtain a crossing permit from the operator for each specific location, detailing the conditions and limitations for each crossing. • During pipeline construction, maintain minimum separation between the pipe trench and adjacent pipes needed to protect the existing pipeline during construction of the Project, and also to allow for future remedial excavation work on either pipeline without affecting the other pipeline.

Page 6-70

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.36 Cont'd

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 4. Release of drilling Bald Mountain Creek Footprint to • If HDD is required, use an inert, nontoxic, bentonitic clay- • Release of drilling mud during and other watercourse Local based material as drilling mud [Section 8.1]. mud on land, may horizontal crossings • If HDD is required, implement the Directional Drilling affect soil directional drilling Procedures and Instream Drilling Mud Release Contingency productivity. Plan in the event of a release [Section 8 of Appendix 8E]. • Disturbance of vegetation/habitat could result during clean-up and reclamation efforts following a horizontal directional drilling mud release on land or riparian areas. • Depending on the volume and location of the release, a release of horizontal directional drilling mud into a watercourse may affect aquatic ecosystems. 5. Transportation Access to and from the Local to • Require all contractor personnel to participate in a safety and • A transportation accidents work-site Region environmental training session that will include instruction on accident may cause the expectation that all Project-related vehicles are required injury to people or to follow applicable traffic, road use and safety laws. wildlife or may • Transport workers between construction camp and muster result in fire or areas to work sites by multi-passenger vehicles to the extent contamination of practical [Section 3.0 of Appendix 8F]. lands and water depending on the Follow the Traffic Control Management Plan to manage • location and vehicular movements during construction [Section 3.0 of severity of the Appendix 8F]. accident. 6. Pipeline rupture Construction right-of- Footprint to • NGTL has implemented a comprehensive ERP. • A pipeline failure way Local may adversely affect aquatic ecosystems or wildlife as well as human health depending on severity of incident. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.2.18.2 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.37 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual environmental effects associated with accidents and malfunctions during the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual environmental effects is provided below.

Page 6-71

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.37

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Inadvertent spills or product release (Refer to the individual elements above for a significance evaluation of adverse residual effects) could result in contamination or alteration of: soil productivity (Section 6.2.2); vegetation (Section 6.2.3); surface or groundwater quality (Section 6.2.4); wetlands (Section 6.2.6); and wildlife and wildlife habitat (Section 6.2.7). (b) Fires may adversely affect adjacent negative footprint immediate accidental short to low to low moderate not vegetation and, in very rare situations, to region to long-term high significant affect wildlife and adjacent property. short-term (c) Rupture of utility lines could lead to negative footprint immediate accidental immediate low to low moderate not interruption of services, contamination of to region to to high significant soil or water depending on the location short-term short-term and severity of the rupture, and fires in the case of gas. (d) Disturbance of vegetation/habitat could negative footprint short-term accidental medium to low to low moderate not result during clean-up and reclamation to local long-term high significant efforts following a horizontal directional drilling mud release on land or riparian areas. (e) Depending on the volume and location of negative footprint immediate accidental immediate low to low moderate not the release, a release of horizontal to local to to medium- medium significant directional drilling mud into a watercourse short-term term may affect aquatic ecosystems. (f) A transportation accident may cause negative local to immediate accidental immediate low to low moderate not injury to people or wildlife or may result in region to high significant fire or contamination of lands and water permanent depending on the location and severity of the accident. (g) A pipeline failure may adversely affect negative footprint immediate accidental short to low to low moderate not vegetation or wildlife and wildlife habitat to region to long-term high significant as well as impact human health, short-term depending on the severity of the incident. Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated.

Spills of Hazardous Materials Terrestrial spills during construction or operation will generally be very small and localized within the Footprint. Since clean-up of terrestrial spills is expected to be effective, and light hydrocarbons (i.e., diesel and hydraulic oils) tend to disperse readily and break down, the potential adverse residual effects of spot spills on soil productivity are of low magnitude and reversible in the short-term (Table 6.37, point [a]).

Surface water or groundwater quality could be affected from a spill during construction or operation. Depending on the size and location, a spill could be considered significant. However, the probability of a significant adverse residual effect is low. With the implementation of clean-up and remediation measures, spills potentially affecting surface or groundwater are considered to be of low to medium magnitude and reversible in the short-term. The probability of a spill contaminating groundwater is low (Table 6.37 point [b]).

Spills during construction or operation could potentially contaminate or otherwise alter aquatic habitat (i.e., instream fish habitat, wetlands) or terrestrial habitat (i.e., riparian fish and wildlife habitat, upland

Page 6-72

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 wildlife habitat, vegetation habitat, peatlands). Depending on the severity and location of the spill, residual effects are expected to be reversible in the short-term (e.g., small terrestrial spill that affects only herbaceous vegetation) to long-term (e.g., spill affecting forested wildlife habitat may require clearing to effectively clean-up and reclaim the site; cleared habitat can regenerate in the long-term). Similarly, the magnitude of residual effects of spills on habitat varies depending on the severity of the event and the habitat affected. For example, in the event of a large spill such as a fuel truck rollover in a stream with high quality fish habitat, the adverse residual effects could be of high magnitude with long lasting ramifications to the health of the stream. Although spill contingency and clean-up measures would reduce the magnitude and improve reversibility of the residual effects, such an incident could be considered significant due to the adverse residual effects in a highly sensitive environment. Since events such as this rarely occur and even more rarely occur instream or where other sensitive habitats exist (e.g., rare plant populations or habitat features important for wildlife species of concern), the probability of a significant adverse residual effect is low (Table 6.37, point [c]).

Fire During Construction The significance of a fire will depend greatly on the size and what it consumes. Since small fires within the Footprint and off of the Footprint are of minor and moderate concern respectively, and can be extinguished quickly, they are not likely to cause a significant adverse residual effect. Large fires that spread off the Footprint and result in loss of resources and property are likely to be considered a significant adverse residual effect. With the implementation of mitigative measures (e.g., construction crews having firefighting equipment and training) and the development of a Fire Contingency Plan (Appendix 8 of this ESA), the probability of large fires developing is low (Table 6.37 point [b]).

Rupture of or Damage to Utility Lines During Construction Rupture of a water line, buried cable or telephone line along the proposed route may be inconvenient but the adverse residual effects would likely be of low magnitude, and reversible in the immediate to short- term since repair would be relatively easy.

In the event of a rupture of a high-pressure gas line, the risk of explosion and risk to human health could be considered significant. Since high-pressure pipelines are easily located (as opposed to some low- pressure plastic distribution lines) and are of sufficient size and strength that rupture is extremely unlikely, the probability of a significant adverse effect resulting from an explosion of existing gas pipelines is low.

The rupture of a foreign pipeline during construction of the pipeline resulting in severe contamination to air or water, or loss of vegetation or property (in the event of explosion or fire) could be considered a significant adverse effect. Since NGTL will be adhering to industry standards, regulations and company protocols, the probability of a significant adverse effect resulting from working in the vicinity of foreign pipelines is low (Table 6.37 point [c]).

Inadvertent Release of Drilling Mud during Horizontal Directional Drilling The release of drilling mud on riparian areas during HDD of a watercourse is not uncommon. Instream releases are considered less likely to occur. This is primarily due to the layout of directional drill paths which are commonly much longer than the width of the watercourse and have shallower depths of cover near the upland drill entry and exit locations. The depth of cover along an HDD path often reaches its maximum directly under the watercourse. In most cases, a drilling mud release is relatively benign since the bentonite clay is inert and can often be cleaned up and the areas affected by the release readily reclaimed. The introduction of a clay based drilling mud into the environment will have variable effects depending on the location, volume released and the level of clean-up that is appropriate. Monitoring programs throughout a HDD program allow detection of a release of drilling mud soon after a release occurs. The ability to stop the flow of mud quickly also aids in limiting the total volume of drilling mud released. Since the total volumes of drilling mud released during an inadvertent release are generally limited, drilling mud released into a watercourse will dissipate into a watercourse in a short period. Schmidt et al. (2001) evaluated the effect of a release of mud during HDD on wetlands at five sites and determined that none displayed significant long-term effects as a result of bentonite discharge and further noted that the level of observed effect was in part related to the nature of clean-up procedures. The reversibility of the adverse residual effect of a terrestrial (upland or riparian area) drilling mud release will

Page 6-73

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 depend on the length of time it takes for vegetation to recolonize the area disturbed by the mud and clean-up activities and varies from medium to long-term. An instream drilling mud release is reversible in the immediate to medium-term, depending on the volume of the release and flow rates of the watercourse (Table 6.37, points [d] and [e]).

Transportation Accidents A transportation accident arising from increased traffic on major roads associated with construction of the Project would likely be considered a significant adverse residual effect if the accident resulted in serious injury to humans, death to a wildlife species of concern, damage to property or critical habitat from a fire or severe contamination of lands or water. However, the probability of a vehicle accident having a significant effect is low (Table 6.37 point [f]).

Product Release During Operation Pipelines are considered the safest and most efficient method of transporting large volumes of natural gas products over long distances. A product release could entail a relatively small leak or, in a severe instance, a failure with potentially significant effects. In the case of a minor leak, gas is lighter than air and will dissipate with little effect on the surrounding environment. The discussion that follows will focus on the potential adverse residual effects associated with a rupture.

There are two adverse residual effects that could arise from a rupture during operation. These include the direct effects of the product release on the surrounding environment and the effect that any clean-up activities may have at the site of the rupture.

A major release of natural gas would immediately engage the block valves, thereby, limiting the amount of product released. Depending on the situation, a release of natural gas could be considered a significant event. For example, if the release was near an ignition source and a fire was started, this could be considered significant if it was large in size and if it was near human receptors or native vegetation. See heading above entitled "Fire During Construction" for further details. If a release occurred and a fire was not started, again depending on the location, if it was near human receptors, farming operations or areas frequented by wildlife, the event could be considered significant. Further discussion of the potential residual effects of a product release on water quality, aquatic ecosystems, wetland function, vegetation, wildlife habitat and human health is provided in the previous Sections 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.6, 6.2.3, 6.2.7 and 6.2.15 of this ESA.

When consideration is given to the stringent design of the proposed pipeline and construction methods, as well as NGTL's monitoring and preventative maintenance programs and the ERP, the likelihood of a product release having significant effects is low (Table 6.37 point [g]).

Clean-up activities at the site of the failure could affect soils, aquatic ecosystems, vegetation, wildlife, and human receptors in the vicinity. Clean-up activities are not unlike those undertaken during investigative digs. Clean-up activities could result in admixing and erosion of soil (see Section 6.2.2), siltation of and effect on aquatic resources (see Sections 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.2.6), disturbance/removal of vegetation (see Section 6.2.3), displacement of wildlife (see Section 6.2.7) and potential disruption of land use activities or effects on nearby human receptors (see Sections 6.2.11 and 6.2.15).

6.2.18.3 Summary As identified in Table 6.37 of this ESA, there are no situations arising from accidents and malfunctions where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects arising from an accident or malfunction during construction and operation for the pipeline will not be significant.

Page 6-74

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

6.3 Effects Assessment - Decommissioning and Abandonment Decommissioning means the permanent cessation of the operation of a pipeline without discontinuance of service and abandonment means the permanent cessation of the operation of a pipeline which results in the discontinuance of service.

The Project has been designed to have a useful life in excess of 40 years. 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. Any decommissioning or abandonment activities will require prior approval by the NEB and other applicable agencies.

Accordingly, decommissioning and abandonment were not considered further in this assessment.

6.4 Effects of the Environment on the Project NGTL has been operating a pipeline system and associated facilities throughout Canada for several years and is aware of the normal environmental conditions experienced along the proposed pipeline route. This knowledge is reflected in the engineering design and mitigative measures proposed to address these environmental conditions.

6.4.1 Environmental Conditions Not Considered The following environmental conditions were not considered to have the potential to adversely affect the Project either during construction or operation or both:

• slumping;

• severe weather including high wind speeds, heavy/persistent precipitation or extreme temperatures, lightning and temperature inversions; and

• seismic activity.

Slumping Engineering and design of the proposed pipeline has taken into consideration the potential for slumping along the proposed route. During construction, trench breakers, subdrains and/or diversion berms will be installed at select locations along the proposed route to control subsurface and surface water flow. These measures are designed to direct water off of the proposed right-of-way, thereby reducing the potential for erosion and sudden mass movements of soil. Other mitigative measures will be implemented where the potential for localized terrain instability exists (Section 6.2.1 of this ESA). Areas of potential terrain instability will be monitored during regular aerial patrols during operation and remedial action will be promptly undertaken where warranted.

Severe Weather

High Winds High winds could result in the suspension of some construction activities such as topsoil or root zone material handling, clearing, slash burning and welding. The buried pipeline will not be adversely affected by high winds. Consequently, no adverse effects on the pipeline are anticipated due to wind, regardless of the wind direction.

Inclement Weather Heavy or persistent precipitation could result in the delay of pipeline construction if strippings salvage activities have not been completed or if wet soil conditions create safety or traffic-related problems. However, delays in construction due to severe weather conditions, in the scheduled winter period, are

Page 6-75

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 expected to be short in duration. If construction extends into winter, severe weather conditions are considered more likely to occur.

During the operation phase, heavy or persistent precipitation or extreme temperatures are not anticipated to adversely affect the pipeline (when buried) and although it is unlikely, severe persistent precipitation could affect access to aboveground facilities during operation. Equipment, instruments, piping and structures will be constructed of materials suitable for low temperature service. As a result, no adverse effects on the Project are anticipated to result from inclement weather.

Lightning Lightning has the potential to impact the power supply and damage aboveground equipment and buildings. Aboveground facilities will be grounded in accordance with provincial and National Building Codes to minimize the risk of damage due to lightning. Consequently, the risk of damage to the pipeline and aboveground facilities is considered to be low and no adverse environmental effects on the Project are anticipated to result from lightning.

Seismic Activity Seismic activity has the potential to impact the integrity of the pipeline during the operation phase of the Project. However, there is low potential for seismic activity with the Project area and no adverse effects on the Project are anticipated to result from seismic activity.

6.4.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures As stated in Section 6.2 of this ESA, environmental conditions may have other effects on the Project. The following environmental conditions were identified by the assessment team to have the potential to adversely affect the Project either during construction or operation or both:

• flooding;

• forest fires; and

• changing climatic conditions.

Table 6.38 summarizes these potential environmental conditions and provides mitigative measures minimize the potential effects on the Project.

Page 6-76

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.38

POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT

Project Potential Residual Potential Effect Location Boundary Recommendations/Mitigative Measures [EPP Reference]1 Effect(s) 1. Loss of depth of Watercourses Footprint • Implement the Flood and Excessive Flow Contingency Plan if • Loss of cover over cover due to excessive flows (i.e., greater than the seasonally normal the pipeline may flooding and expected flow range based on existing and predicted flow occur in isolated erosion data) are anticipated at trenched crossings, or if excessive areas as a result of flow or flood conditions should occur during watercourse an extreme flood crossing construction [Appendix 8E]. event. • Ensure pipeline burial depths at watercourses have taken into consideration flood events and scouring of the bed so that risk to the integrity of the pipeline due to such events is minimal. • See mitigative measures pertaining to prevention of siltation of watercourses as a result of flooding or excessive flows in Section 6.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat. • Monitor the pipeline depth of cover within watercourses throughout the life of the pipeline. Complete remedial work where warranted to protect pipeline integrity [Section 10.0].

2. Wildfire Entire route Footprint to • Ensure appropriate and effective procedures and materials • Depending on the Region are in place in the event of a wildfire during construction. severity, a wildfire Implement the Fire Contingency Plan [Appendix 8E]. could affect the • See Table 6.36 for the Accidents and Malfunctions element construction for mitigative measures regarding fire caused by Project schedule. construction activities. 3. Climate change Entire route Footprint to • Consider the changes to climatic conditions (e.g., snow pack • Depending on the Region conditions, timing and intensity of runoff and discharge within type and severity of watercourses, amount of rainfall) within the Project area when the change in scheduling maintenance activities along the proposed route. climatic conditions, • Understand the relationship between climatic parameters and climate change may the spread of pests that may affect vegetation, such as the affect the mountain pine beetle, and undertake appropriate protection scheduling of measures to dispose of slash during maintenance activities as maintenance directed by the appropriate authority. activities. Note: 1 Detailed mitigative measures are outlined in the Project-specific EPP (Appendix 6).

6.4.3 Significance Evaluation of Residual Effects Table 6.39 provides a summary of the significance evaluation of potential residual effects of the environment on the construction and operation of the Project. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of the residual effects is provided below.

Page 6-77

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 6.39

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT

Temporal Context

Potential Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Duration Frequency Reversibility Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance (a) Loss of cover over the pipeline may negative footprint immediate accidental short to low low high not occur in isolated areas as a result of an to local long-term significant extreme flood event. (b) Depending on the severity, a wildfire negative footprint immediate accidental short-term low low high not could affect the construction schedule. to local to significant short-term (c) Depending on the type and severity of negative footprint immediate accidental short-term low to low high not the change in climatic conditions, to local to medium significant climate change may affect the short-term scheduling of maintenance activities. Note: 1 Significant Residual Environmental Effect: A high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated.

Flooding An extreme flood event, either during construction or operation, could result in a loss of cover over the pipeline along floodplains and in watercourses along the proposed pipeline route. The potential effects of flooding and associated mitigation vary depending upon the timing, location and magnitude of the event. A flood event that occurs immediately prior to the commencement of instream construction at a water crossing could delay construction activities and, in extreme cases, threaten the integrity of the temporary vehicle crossing. The duration of use will be considered during the selection of the type of temporary vehicle crossing to be installed while the design and sizing (e.g., culvert diameter) and freeboard (e.g., single span structure) of the vehicle crossing will meet or exceed the requirements identified in the applicable provincial and federal regulations. These structures will be designed and installed to handle the anticipated flow conditions during the period of use.

Should flooding occur during construction of a trenched watercourse crossing, the increased flows could exceed the capability of the dams, pumps or flumes used to isolate the construction area or erode onshore spoil piles. In the unlikely event that flooding occurs during instream construction, water quality would likely be somewhat reduced due to an incremental increase in TSS over the slightly elevated TSS levels that are commonly associated with instream construction. The Flood and Excessive Flow Contingency Plan outlined in Appendix 6 of this ESA would be implemented to minimize the effects of high water levels during instream construction. The risk of a flood occurring during instream construction is considered to be low since construction is scheduled to commence in winter when instream flow is expected to be low. In addition, the weather forecast applicable to the watershed for the anticipated crossing construction period can be reviewed immediately prior to commencement of crossing construction enabling the timely implementation of measures to mitigate any concerns.

Watercourse crossing construction is proposed during low flow periods or after peak flows and the pipeline will be buried deep enough to minimize the potential effects of flooding, as well as associated erosion and scouring. Nevertheless, line patrols during operation will pay particular attention to the bed and banks of watercourse crossings following floods to further ensure the integrity of the pipeline and minimize effects on the aquatic environment. Remedial measures will be taken immediately, where warranted, following receipt of applicable approvals. Consequently, the probability of a flood resulting in a significant adverse environmental effect is low. This residual effect is considered to be reversible in the short-term (Table 6.39, point [a]).

Page 6-78

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Wildfire The construction of the Project is scheduled during winter. Prior to initiating construction activities or maintenance activities during operation, it is recommended that NGTL contact the appropriate provincial authorities (i.e., ASRD) to discuss the timing of any prescribed burns in the area of the activity and will work with them to resolve potential conflict. Consequently, the probability that prescribed burns may have an effect on the construction or operation of the Project is considered to be of low with a low to medium magnitude.

A wildfire in the immediate vicinity of the proposed route during the construction phase, although unlikely, could delay construction activities along the affected portions of the proposed route. Construction activities and/or construction-related traffic would be suspended in potentially affected portions if conditions were considered to be unsafe by the NGTL Construction Manager or if requested by the appropriate authority (i.e., ASRD). The short delay of construction activities due to wildfire generally would be considered as having a minor affect on the Project with the exception of a severe wildfire, which could affect large portions of the proposed route and could delay the resumption of construction activities into another season.

During the operation phase, forest fires are unlikely to adversely affect the buried pipeline; however, they could affect aboveground facilities.

An assessment of the effects arising from construction activities is provided in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 while contingency measures identified in the Fire Contingency Plan (Appendix 6 of this ESA) have been prepared to ensure that appropriate and effective procedures and materials are in place in the event of a fire accidentally caused during construction of the Project. As described in Section 6.2.18.1, the probability of a fire resulting in a significant adverse environmental effect is low (Table 6.39, point [b]).

Climate Change Changes to climatic conditions during operation of the Project may manifest in several ways. Increases in snow pack in winter and warmer temperatures during spring may extend and intensify runoff and alter hydrologic regimes within watercourses including timing and duration of peak flows. During operation of the Project, it is expected that NGTL will be adaptive in their management of the pipeline and schedule maintenance activities to accommodate local environmental conditions (e.g., conducting activity in riparian areas during periods of low flow and least risk) and implement the appropriate protection measures to suit local environmental conditions (e.g., regulatory measures regarding disposal of MPB infested vegetation) so as to minimize the potential environmental effect. By utilizing adaptive management practices that are responsive to changing conditions, this residual effect is considered to be reversible in the short-term (Table 6.39, point [c]).

6.4.4 Summary As identified in Table 6.39, there are no situations arising from the effects of the environment on the Project where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term residual environmental effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, it is concluded that the residual effects of the environment on the construction and operation of the Project will not be significant.

6.5 Summary of Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment

6.5.1 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment The environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the Project are similar to those routinely encountered during pipeline and facility construction in a predominately forested setting.

The potential environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the Project were identified through: consultation with the federal and provincial government representatives; Aboriginal communities;

Page 6-79

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 other stakeholders and the general public; review of existing literature; field studies; and the professional judgement of the assessment team. These potential effects were related to environmental and socio-economic elements including:

• physical elements such as physical environment, soil and soil productivity, water and water quality, air quality, and acoustic environment;

• biological elements such as wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk;

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, social and cultural well-being, human health, infrastructure and services, and employment and economy; and

• accidents and malfunctions.

Several mitigative strategies have been employed to avoid or minimize the effects of the Project including: avoidance through pipeline route selection; development of practical and effective mitigative measures to address numerous site-specific and general issues; inspection during construction to ensure that planned mitigation is implemented and effective; and conducting the maintenance and operation of the Project with a high standard of environmental excellence.

Through the implementation of the mitigative and enhancement measures, the residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project on the other environmental and socio-economic elements were considered, in each case, to be not significant. Refer to significance summary tables throughout Section 6.2.

6.5.2 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project Environmental conditions such as flooding, wildfires and climatic conditions were considered to have the potential to adversely affect the Project either during construction or operation or both. However, through the alignment of the pipelines to avoid potentially unstable areas, implementation of contingency plans and burial of the pipe, the potential effects of the environment on the construction or operation of the Project are minimized and considered to be not significant (Table 6.42).

Page 6-80

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT The cumulative effects assessment evaluates the adverse residual effects directly associated with the Project (as identified in Section 6.0 of this ESA) in combination with the likely adverse residual effects arising from other projects and activities that have been or will be carried out in the LSA or RSA of the Project. Future projects considered in the assessment do not include proposed or hypothetical projects where formal plans have not been disclosed.

7.1 Methodology The assessment methodology used to evaluate the cumulative effects of the adverse residual environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project contained the following steps:

• identification of potential adverse residual effects of the Project;

• determination of spatial and temporal boundaries for each biophysical and socio-economic element where adverse residual effects have been identified for the Project;

• identification of other past, present and future projects and activities with adverse residual effects that may act in combination with the adverse residual effects of Project;

• identification of potential cumulative effects;

• development of technically and economically feasible mitigative measures; and

• determination of the significance of the cumulative effects.

This cumulative effects assessment methodology has been developed based on the CEA Agency’s The Authority's Guide to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Agency 1994), the CEA Agency’s Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999), the CEA Act and the NEB Filing Manual.

7.1.1 Identification of Adverse Residual Effects The environmental and socio-economic effects assessment presented in Section 6.0 of this ESA describes and justifies the methodology used to predict residual effects associated with the proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) Project.

As per Guide A.2.6 of the NEB Filing Manual, if a physical, biological and socio-economic element evaluated in the environmental and socio-economic effects assessment had no adverse residual effects predicted, then no further analysis of that element is required in the cumulative effects assessment. Therefore, the cumulative effects assessment is limited to elements with residual effects that could act cumulatively with residual effects from other projects or activities. In addition, adverse residual effects arising from accidents and malfunctions may also potentially act cumulatively with the adverse residual effects from other projects and activities in the area, and were analyzed where applicable.

7.1.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries The spatial boundaries presented in Section 6.1.1 were used in the cumulative effects assessment.

The temporal boundaries used in the cumulative effects assessment include past development (up to the construction of the Project), the construction phase of the proposed development commencing in December 2010, and the operation phase to commence following completion of construction and to extend to the expected life of the Project (i.e., 30+ years). Temporal boundaries identified for each element are presented in Table 7.2.

Page 7-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

7.1.3 Other Projects and Activities Other projects and activities that have occurred or that are likely to occur in the Project area will vary depending on the spatial residual effects boundaries identified for the specific biophysical or socio- economic element. The criteria used to determine projects that may act cumulatively with the proposed Project are:

• the project or activity has already been built or conducted in the vicinity of the Project; or

• the project is either proposed (public disclosure) or has been approved to be built in the next year or two years, but is not yet built in the vicinity of the Project.

Numerous government agency representatives were asked during the government consultation process to identify any ongoing, proposed or approved projects or development activities that might interact with the Project. Additional sources that were searched for projects that could have cumulative interactions with the Project include the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), NEB and CEA Registry websites (AUC 2010, ERCB 2010a,b, Government of Alberta 2009, NEB 2010, CEA Agency 2010).

7.1.3.1 Historic Development European fur traders first arrived in the Peace River Country as early as 1770, with Grande Prairie established as a Hudson's Bay trading post in 1881 (Discover the Peace Country 2010). Settlers began to arrive in the area in the early 1900s and most of the available lands for settlement were taken up in the area by 1911 (Clare 1998). Since then, lands have been cleared for further transportation infrastructure, and oil and gas activities. Although some oil and gas drilling has been on-going in the South Peace since the 1950s, oil and gas exploration did not begin to occur on a large scale until the late 1970s, when the Elmworth gas field was discovered and exploited. The opening of the Procter & Gamble kraft pulp mill in 1972 coupled with the discovery of the Elmworth deep basin gas field spurred an economic boom in the city of Grande Prairie and outlying areas. The city of Grande Prairie's population increased from approximately 12,000 in the early 1970s to over 24,000 by the time the oil boom went bust in 1981 (Discover the Peace Country 2010). The Project area lies in a forested setting that has been developed with oil and gas exploration and development activities, including seismic operations, pipelines, access roads and lease sites as well as timber harvesting.

7.1.3.2 Current and On-going Development The pipeline route will act cumulatively with other projects or activities within the study area that have been or will likely be carried out. These primarily include the following:

• oil and gas exploration and development activities, including seismic operations, pipelines, access roads and lease sites;

• timber harvesting; and

• road development.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities • The proposed pipeline lies adjacent to and parallels existing roads and pipeline rights-of-way for approximately 88% of its length.

Within the RSA, companies that have recently applied to the ERCB to construct and operate oil and gas developments are listed in Table 7.1. Depending on the respective construction schedule, these developments may have the potential to interact cumulatively with construction of the proposed Project.

Page 7-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.1

APPLICATIONS TO THE ERCB FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE RSA

Development Application Primary Applicant Type Legal Location Status ConocoPhillips Canada Well 12-21-67-6 W6M Newly licensed Operations Ltd. Novus Energy Inc. Well 1-22-65-8 W6M Newly Licensed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Well 1-35-66-8 W6M Newly Licensed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Well 3-4-66-7 W6M Newly Licensed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Well 4-18-65-7 W6M Newly Licensed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Well 5-19-66-7 W6M Newly Licensed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Well 11-25-66-7 W6M Newly Licensed Progress Energy Ltd. Well 3-11-68-6 W6M Newly Licensed Progress Energy Ltd. Well 4-35-67-6 W6M Newly Licensed Progress Energy Ltd. Well 8-16-67-6 W6M Newly Licensed Progress Energy Ltd. Well 9-3-68-6 W6M Newly Licensed Redcliffe Exploration Inc. Well 9-27-67-6 W6M Newly Licensed Redcliffe Exploration Inc. Well 9-32-66-6 W6M Newly Licensed Seaview Energy Inc. Well 1-17-66-7 W6M Newly Licensed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Compressor 6-24-66-8 W6M to 11-25-66-8 W6M To Be Constructed Station Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 16-23-67-6 W6M to 12-26-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Pipeline 16-17-65-7 W6M to 11-17-65-7 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 10-21-67-6 W6M to 5-27-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 2-26-67-6 W6M to 3-26-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Pipeline 6-36-65-8 W6M to 9-36-65-8 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 5-22-67-6 W6M to 16-22-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Pipeline 15-4-67-6 W6M to 12-4-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed Canadian Natural Resources Pipeline 14-26-66-7 W6M to 3-26-66-7 W6M To Be Constructed Limited Progress Energy Ltd. Compressor 9-2-68-7 W6M to 11-2-68-7 W6M To Be Constructed Station Nuvista Energy Ltd. Pipeline 14-8-65-7 W6M to 7-8-65-7 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 8-32-68-7 W6M to 15-33-68-7 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 12-25-67-6 W6M to 12-26-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed Caltex Energy Inc. Pipeline 14-14-67-8 W6M to 12-14-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 7-11-67-6 W6M to 8-11-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Pipeline 6-19-66-7 W6M to 1-23-66-8 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 5-4-69-7 W6M to 16-34-68-7 W6M To Be Constructed Delphi Energy Corp. Pipeline 16-27-66-6 W6M to 10-26-66-6 W6M To Be Constructed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Pipeline 11-26-65-8 W6M to 14-26-65-8 W6M To Be Constructed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Pipeline 11-16-66-7 W6M to 10-16-66-7 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 3-33-68-6 W6M to 7-28-68-6 W6M To Be Constructed Nuvista Energy Ltd. Pipeline 10-36-65-8 W6M to 9-36-65-8 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 10-10-68-6 W6M to 12-11-68-6 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 05-1-67-6 W6M to 8-11-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Pipeline 1-14-67-6 W6M to 16-23-67-6 W6M To Be Constructed ConocoPhillips Canada Battery 5-35-64-8 W6M To Be Constructed Operations Ltd. Devon Canada Corporation Battery 10-24-65-8 W6M To Be Constructed Canadian Natural Resources Battery 10-34-65-6 W6M To Be Constructed Limited

Page 7-3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.1 Cont'd

Development Application Primary Applicant Type Legal Location Status ConocoPhillips Canada Battery 14-34-65-7 W6M To Be Constructed Operations Ltd. Canadian Natural Resources Battery 14-22-66-7 W6M To Be Constructed Limited Canadian Natural Resources Battery 2-27-66-7 W6M To Be Constructed Limited BP Canada Energy Company Battery 10-30-66-7 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Battery 11-30-66-7 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 6-31-66-7 W6M To Be Constructed Artek Explorations Ltd. Battery 16-34-66-7 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 16-36-66-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 8-1-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 7-1-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Battery 7-2-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 10-1-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 14-1-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 4-7-67-7 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 1-11-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 2-11-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 7-12-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 10-12-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 12-12-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 14-12-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 14-11-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 7-13-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 6-13-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 8-14-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Battery 9-13-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Husky Oil Operations Limited Satellite 10-14-67-8 W6M To Be Constructed Canadian Natural Resources Battery 8-36-67-7 W6M To Be Constructed Limited Progress Energy Ltd. Battery 10-1-68-8 W6M To Be Constructed Devon Canada Corporation Battery 6-7-68-7 W6M To Be Constructed Canadian Natural Resources Battery 8-22-68-6 W6M To Be Constructed Limited Canadian Natural Resources Battery 12-23-68-6 W6M To Be Constructed Limited Canadian Natural Resources Battery 13-26-68-6 W6M To Be Constructed Limited Progress Energy Ltd. Battery 4-31-68-6 W6M To Be Constructed Canadian Natural Resources Battery 1-36-68-8 W6M To Be Constructed Limited Hunt Oil Company of Canada, Inc. Battery 6-35-68-7 W6M To Be Constructed Gibson Energy ULC Waste Facility 4-27-65-7 W6M To Be Constructed Progress Energy Ltd. Facility 10-34-68-7 W6M To Be Constructed Sources: ERCB 2010a,b, Information Handling Services (IHS) Inc. 2009, AltaLIS 2010 Note: January 2010 to July 2010

Page 7-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

7.1.3.3 Proposed Future Development There are no other NGTL or TransCanada projects / activities to be carried out in the vicinity of the proposed Project which may be concurrent with the proposed pipeline installation. Those activities to be carried out in the future include gas pipeline and facility maintenance, and oil and gas development (see Figure 7.1).

Page 7-5

RGE. 8 W6M RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 W6M TWP. 69 TWP.

W i l s o n La k e C am p Ir b e o q 12-24-68-7 W6M ll u o i C s C r r !. e e e 68 TWP. k [KP 0 e W k i l so n C ST40 re e k B a ld M o u n ta i n C r e e k

!. KP 5

!. KP 10 TWP. 67 TWP.

S t o n y C r e ek !. KP 15 k e e r C k n e i e a r t C n u d l o

M G d l a B !. KP 20 TWP. 66 TWP.

i g

o !. u P KP 25 n i n t to a i C n r e C e k k r e e e C r e p k e e St

!.KP 30

65 TWP.

!. KP 35

v KP 38 i !. R [ k 6-2-65-7 W6M n a t b C u TWP. 64 TWP.

FIGURE 7.1 SCALE: 1: 150,000 Fort km St. John Peace River KNOWN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS J J 0 1 2 3 4 J IN THE VICINITY OF Dawson Fairview Creek (All Locations Approximate) J High THE PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. Slave Prairie J Lake J CUTBANK RIVER LATERAL LOOP Grande J Prairie (BALD MOUNTAIN SECTION) RSA August 2010 6922 Mapped JValleyview DATA SOURCES: Area [ Tie-In Location Existing Pipeline Imagery: Spot 5 Satellite Imagery © 2010 CNES, Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Fox JCreek Other Proposed Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; Other Proposed Well Development, Other Proposed Facility Development, 40 Highway Grande ST Prince George Well Development Other Proposed Pipeline Development: J JCache IHS 2010, TERA Environmental Consultants 2010; Other Proposed Edson Road Regional Study Area: TERA Environmental Consultants 2010; J Facility Development Pipeline Routing: Midwest Survey 2010; J Hinton Regional Study Area Existing Pipeline: IHS Inc. 2010; B R I T I S H Stream/River Road: GeoBase® 2008; ALBERTA Proposed Pipeline Route Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004, Natural Resources Canada 2007. COLUMBIA Other Proposed Pipeline Development Lake Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 6922_CEA_Figure7.1_Known_Proposed_Development_Rev0.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

7.1.4 Prediction of Cumulative Effects Predictions of potential cumulative effects that may occur as a result of construction and operation of the proposed Project have relied in part on historical trend data and information on resource status within the area of the Project. In addition, agency representatives were asked during the government consultation process to identify other existing developments or proposed projects in the vicinity that could act cumulatively with the Project.

The cumulative effects of the Project depend on many factors, including: the source of the disturbance; spatial and temporal context; resilience of the receiving environment; and whether the disturbances combine in a linear, exponential, discontinuous, additive, synergistic or other manner. The level of detail provided in the analysis reflects the extent to which a cumulative effect on a biophysical or socio-economic element is probable, the likely scale or magnitude of effect, as well as the extent to which these effects can be accurately and reasonably quantified and described relative to the receiving environment.

7.1.5 Quantitative Analysis of the Land Disturbance in the Project Area A quantitative analysis of the changes in land uses and native vegetation within both the LSA (7,830.7 ha) and the RSA (92,505.0 ha) was undertaken. Present day land use was determined using aerial photography and the data sources outlined in Table 7.2. The footprint of disturbances were identified using the assumptions outlined in Table 7.2. The Project area is active with existing and new anthropogenic disturbances affecting approximately 23% of the LSA (see Table 7.3) and 16% of the RSA (see Table 7.4). The proposed Project (74.5 ha) will increase disturbance within the LSA by less than 1% and increase disturbance within the RSA by approximately 0.08%.

TABLE 7.2

LAND USE FEATURES AND ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

Footprint Average Land Use Feature Width (m) or Area (ha) Source Project (pipeline right-of-way) Polygon Midwest Survey 2010 Other Pipelines 20 m AltaLIS 2010; IHS Inc. 2010 Highways 50 m AltaLIS 2010; GeoBase® 2008; IHS Inc. 2010 Roads 15 m AltaLIS 2010; GeoBase® 2008; IHS Inc. 2010 Railways 20 m Natural Resources Canada 2008 Trails 4 m Natural Resources Canada 2008 Cut Lines 8 m AltaLIS 2010; Natural Resources Canada 2008; Transmission Lines 50 m AltaLIS 2010 Well Sites 1.2 ha IHS Inc. 2010; TERA Environmental Consultants 2010 Industrial Facilities Polygon size or 4 ha IHS Inc. 2010; AltaLIS 2010; TERA Environmental Consultants 2010 Camp Grounds Polygon size or 1.2 ha Natural Resources Canada 2008 Temporary Workspace Polygon size Midwest Survey 2010 Communities Polygon size Natural Resources Canada 2008; IHS Inc. 2004 Exposed / Built-up Area Polygon size AltaLIS 2010; Land Cover for agricultural regions of Canada, circa 2000, Published in 2009 Agricultural Area Polygon Size Land Cover for agricultural regions of Canada, circa 2000, Published on 2009

Page 7-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.3

EXISTING AND NEW AREAL DISTURBANCE IN THE LSA

Existing Areal New Areal Disturbance (ha) Total Areal Disturbance Cutbank River Other Disturbance Land Use Feature (ha) Lateral Loop Activities Total (ha) Pipelines 349.0 76.7 3.3 80.0 429.0 Highways 0 0 0 0 0 Roads 163.5 0 0 0 163.5 Railways 0 0 0 0 0 Trails 0 0 0 0 0 Cut Lines 164.1 0 0 0 164.1 Transmission Lines 0 0 0 0 0 Well Sites 66.0 0 1.2 1.2 67.2 Industrial Facilities 53.9 0 16.0 16.0 69.9 Camp Grounds 0 0 0 0 0 Temporary Workspace 0 35.4 0 35.4 35.4 Communities 0 0 0 0 0 Exposed / Built-up Area 1,054.8 0 0 0 1,054.8 Agricultural Area 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,851.3 112.1 20.5 132.6 1,983.9 Overlapping Features 185.4 37.6 11.7 49.3 234.7 Total (minus overlap) 1,665.9 74.5 8.8 83.3 1,749.2

TABLE 7.4

EXISTING AND NEW AREAL DISTURBANCE IN THE RSA

Existing Areal New Areal Disturbance (ha) Total Areal Disturbance Cutbank River Other Disturbance Land Use Feature (ha) Lateral Loop Activities Total (ha) Pipelines 2,522.0 76.7 64.9 141.6 2,663.6 Highways 0 0 0 0 0 Roads 1,327.6 0 0 0 1,327.6 Railways 0 0 0 0 0 Trails 14.0 0 0 0 14.0 Cut Lines 1,910.1 0 0 0 1,910.1 Transmission Lines 0 0 0 0 0 Well Sites 739.4 0 16.8 16.8 756.2 Industrial Facilities 819.2 0 159.9 159.9 979.1 Camp Grounds 1.2 0 0 0 1.2 Temporary Workspace 0 35.4 0 35.4 35.4 Communities 0 0 0 0 0 Exposed / Built-up Area 9,246.5 0 0 0 9,246.5 Agricultural Area 53.4 0 0 0 53.4 Total 16,633.4 112.1 241.6 353.7 16,987.1 Overlapping Features 1,625.3 37.6 149.3 186.9 1,812.2 Total (minus overlap) 15008.1 74.5 92.3 166.8 15,174.9

Page 7-8

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

7.1.6 Mitigative Measures In order to ensure that potential cumulative environmental and socio-economic effects are minimized during pipeline construction and/or operation, mitigative measures that are in addition to those listed in Section 6.0 are provided, where warranted.

7.1.7 Determination of Significance Significance of cumulative effects is determined in a manner similar to that employed in determining the significance of residual effects as previously outlined in Section 6.1.6 of this ESA. The six criteria used to assess the significance of cumulative effects are defined in Table 6.1 with the exception of spatial and temporal context, which are discussed in Section 7.1.2 of this ESA.

All significance assessment criteria (e.g., temporal context, magnitude, etc.) were considered by the assessment team for each cumulative environmental or socio-economic effect. Where appropriate, the key or most influential assessment criteria used to determine the significance of each residual effect(s) are noted.

7.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment - Project Construction and Operation Those biophysical and socio-economic effects in which residual effects are predicted and are analyzed in the cumulative effects assessment include:

• physical elements such as physical environment, soil and soil capability, water quality and quantity, air quality and acoustic environment;

• biological elements such as vegetation, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk; and

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, and infrastructure and services.

In addition, residual effects arising from accidents and malfunctions may also potentially act cumulatively with other projects and activities in the area.

Potential adverse residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project on each element are identified within each subsection of Section 7.0 along with the identification of other projects or activities acting in combination with the Project, as well as the Predicted Cumulative Residual Effect and additional mitigation measures.

An evaluation of significance of cumulative residual effects was conducted for the Project. Details of the significance evaluation are also discussed in each subsection of Section 7.0.

7.2.1 Physical Environment The Project may act cumulatively with past and future disturbances in that:

• there may be incremental changes to soil productivity due to rill erosion; and • areas of terrain instability may occur (see Table 7.5).

Page 7-9

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.5

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Previous residual effects on the physical environment in the Project area are generally limited to prior land use activities such as oil and gas development (leases and pipelines) and road construction activities. Residual effects associated with terrain instability and incremental changes in soil productivity may also act cumulatively with past, present and future activities such as utility activities, transportation development, and oil and gas activities, in the areas where the Project parallels and/or crosses these developments. Pipeline construction practices have improved over time and successful implementation of the proposed mitigation measures outlined in Section 6.0 of this ESA as well as the EPP and Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendices 6 and 7 of the ESA) will reduce the magnitude of potential residual effects. The cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on the physical environment are considered to be of low magnitude (Table 7.6).

TABLE 7.6

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT a) An incremental change in soil productivity negative footprint short-term isolated short to low high high not significant may occur. medium-term b) The Project will act cumulatively with past negative footprint short-term occasional short to low high high not significant and proposed activities in that areas of terrain medium-term instability may occur.

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated (Table 7.6). Consequently, the cumulative residual effect of construction and operation of the Project on the physical environment will be not significant.

Page 7-10

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

7.2.2 Soil and Soil Productivity The Project may act cumulatively with past and future disturbances in that an incremental change in soil productivity may occur. Past activities that have affected soil productivity are largely attributed to previous oil and gas development (leases and pipelines) (see Table 7.7).

TABLE 7.7

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SOIL AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Spatial Temporal Acting in Combination with the Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Potential Adverse Residual Effect Boundary Boundary Proposed Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation SOIL AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY 1 Mixing of strippings and subsoil Footprint Past Past activities: utility activities, The Project will act No additional See due to salvage activities and Development forestry, transportation cumulatively with previous mitigation is Table 7.8 of during trenching where to Operation development, and oil and gas disturbances and warranted. this ESA for strippings salvage did not occur activities proposed activities in that evaluation of 2 Mixing of strippings and subsoil Footprint Past Present activities: forestry, oil and an incremental change in significance. due to measures to reduce Development gas activities (e.g., maintenance) soil productivity may occur. compaction and rutting. to Operation Pipeline-related activities that 3 Minor surface erosion can be Footprint Construction could interact with the above expected until a vegetative activities include strippings cover has been established. salvaging, grading, trenching, 4 Combined effects on soil Footprint Past backfilling and reclamation. productivity of residual effects Development noted above. to Operation 5 Minor trench subsidence or a Footprint Construction to crown over the trench. Operation 6 Potential reduction in soil Footprint Construction to productivity due to terrestrial Operation spills during construction and operation of the pipeline. 7 Potential effects on soil and soil Footprint to Operation productivity resulting from Local activities during operation and maintenance.

No additional soil mitigation is warranted given the proven effectiveness of the proposed soils handling and other soils-related mitigation outlined in Section 6.0 of this ESA as well as the EPP and Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendices 6 and 7 of the ESA). Consequently, it is anticipated that the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on soil productivity are anticipated to be of low magnitude (Table 7.8).

Page 7-11

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.8

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SOIL AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance SOIL AND SOIL PRODUCTIVITY a) The Project will act cumulatively with previous negative footprint short-term periodic short to low high high not significant disturbances and proposed activities in that to local long-term an incremental change in soil productivity may occur.

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated (Table 7.8). Consequently, the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on soil productivity in the forested setting of the proposed project will be not significant.

7.2.3 Vegetation The Project may act cumulatively with past, present and future activities in that:

• weeds may be introduced or spread; • an incremental change in vegetation composition will occur; and • an increase in bark beetle distribution may occur (see Table 7.9).

TABLE 7.9

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON VEGETATION

Page 7-12

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.9 Cont'd

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Acting in Potential Adverse Spatial Temporal Combination with the Proposed Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Residual Effect Boundary Boundary Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation 2 If mitigative Region Past − Past activities: forestry activities, The Project will act No additional See measures do not Development utility activities, transportation cumulatively with past and mitigation is Table 7.10 of completely protect to Operation development, and oil and gas proposed activities in that warranted. the ESA for the site, some loss or activities. an incremental change in evaluation of alteration of the local vegetation community significance. rare plant population − Other proposed activities including composition will occur. may occur. those listed in Table 7.1 − Project-related activities that could interact with the above activities include clearing, strippings salvaging, grading, trenching, backfilling and reclamation. 3 Weed introduction Footprint to Past − Past activities: forestry activities, The Project will act No additional See and spread. Local Development utility activities, transportation cumulatively with past and mitigation is Table 7.10 of to Operation development, and oil and gas proposed activities in that warranted. the ESA for activities. weeds may be introduced evaluation of or spread. significance. − Other proposed activities including those listed in Table 7.1. − Project-related activities that could interact with the above activities include clearing; strippings salvage, storage and replacement; seed mix selection; reclamation; and operations. 4 Vegetation important Region Past − Past, present and future activities The Project will act No additional See to wildlife will be Development such as utility activities, cumulatively with past and mitigation is Table 7.10 of altered including to Operation transportation development and oil proposed activities in that warranted. this ESA for forested areas, and gas activities. an incremental change in evaluation of watercourses, vegetation community significance. − Project-related activities that could composition will occur. wetlands and interact with the above activities drainage crossings. include clearing, strippings salvaging, grading, trenching, backfilling and reclamation. 5 Spread of bark Region Past − Past, present and future activities An increase in bark beetle No additional See beetles may occur. Development such as forestry, and oil and gas distribution may occur. mitigation is Table 7.10 of to Operation activities. warranted. this ESA for evaluation of Project-related activities that could − significance. interact with the above activities include clearing and mowing. 6 Depending on the Region Past − Past activities: utility activities, In the event of an No additional See location, volume and Development transportation development, and oil accidental spill or product mitigation is Table 7.10 of substance, to Operation and gas activities. release, the Project will act warranted. this ESA for disturbance of cumulatively with past evaluation of vegetation could − Project-related activities that could activities in that an significance. occur as a result of interact with the above activities incremental change in an inadvertent spill or include all phases of construction vegetation community product release or and operation. composition may occur. from associated clean-up and reclamation activities.

Past activities contributing to the change in native vegetation over time include forestry activities, oil and gas activities (e.g., well, pipeline and facility development), utility activities (i.e., powerlines), and transportation activities (i.e., for the creation of roads) in the Project area. Proposed projects that may act cumulatively in the RSA include those activities including those listed in Table 7.1

The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of these predicted cumulative residual effects and the significance evaluation is provided below.

Page 7-13

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Alteration of Vegetation Composition It is expected that NGTL will minimize the amount of disturbance of native vegetation and clearing in the area by paralleling existing linear disturbances for 88% of the entire length of the proposed route and by utilizing existing rights-of-way as temporary workspace where feasible.

The Project area is active with existing and new anthropogenic disturbances affecting approximately 23% of the native vegetation within the LSA and approximately 16% of the native vegetation within the RSA. The Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) (74.5 ha) will increase disturbance within the LSA by less than 1% and increase disturbance within the RSA by approximately 0.08%.

The clearing resulting from the Project will result in a decrease in the amount of vegetation available to wildlife. Disturbed areas will be seeded with a native seed mix or, where appropriate, allowed to naturally revegetate. No locally or regionally adopted threshold or standard exists against which the incremental change in vegetation composition can be judged. In the event that rare vascular plant species or rare ecological communities are identified during the spring 2010 vegetation survey, the Plant Species and Ecological Communities of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan will be implemented and appropriate mitigation will be developed (Appendix 6 of this ESA). The cumulative residual effect of the Project on alteration of vegetation composition is considered to be of low to medium magnitude, and reversible in the medium to long-term, depending on the pre-existing vegetation community (Table 7.10).

Weed Introduction and Spread Weeds typically establish in areas that have been previously disturbed. Past activities resulting in ground disturbance and potential introduction and spread of weeds include forestry, creation of roads, pipeline and facility development and the creation of powerline rights-of-way in the area.

No additional weed mitigation is warranted given the proven effectiveness of the proposed weed-related mitigation outlined in Section 6.0 of this ESA and the EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA). The cumulative residual effect of the pipeline construction and operation on weed growth and spread is anticipated to be of low magnitude (Table 7.10).

Increase in Bark Beetle Distribution The historic distribution of MPB is within BC and along the Alberta/BC border. However, pine beetles began appearing in northern Alberta in 2001 (ASRD 2009f). Past activities potentially resulting in the introduction and spread of bark beetles in the RSA include creation of roads, pipeline and facility development and the creation of powerline rights-of-way. The ecological effects of insect and disease outbreaks are not yet fully understood. Nor is it known how climate change will affect natural disturbance regimes in the future. The many uncertainties surrounding how best to treat these forest health issues are best addressed through continued monitoring and adaptation of management strategies.

The cumulative residual effect of pipeline construction and operation on the increase in bark beetle distribution is anticipated to be of low to high magnitude (Table 7.10). Application of the ASRD recommended measures outlined in Section 6.0 and the EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA) is expected to prevent the spread of bark beetles as a result of clearing and tree removal of infected or infested trees within the Footprint. In addition, NGTL will develop the final mitigation in consultation with ASRD. It is assumed that other proposed projects will adhere to provincial recommendations and continue to consult with the appropriate regulators regarding potential effects to forest health. Therefore, no additional mitigation is recommended. It is unlikely that forest health issues within the RSA will be exacerbated by the Project. Therefore, given the successful implementation of the recommended mitigation the occurrence of this effect will be accidental in frequency.

Page 7-14

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.10

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON VEGETATION

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance VEGETATION a) The Project will act cumulatively with past negative region long- periodic medium to medium high high not significant and proposed activities in that an incremental term long-term loss or alternation of native vegetation will occur.

b) The Project will act cumulatively with past negative region long- periodic medium to medium high high not significant and proposed activities if mitigative measures term long-term do not completely protect the site, some loss or alteration of the local rare plant population may occur.

c) The Project will act cumulatively with past negative local short- occasional medium to low high high not significant and proposed activities in that weeds may be term to long-term introduced or spread. continuous

d) The Project will act cumulatively with past negative region medium periodic; medium to medium low high not significant activities in that areas of vegetation important -term accidental long-term to wildlife will be altered.

e) The Project will act cumulatively with past negative region medium accidental medium to low to low moder not significant activities in that an increase in bark beetle -term long-term high ate distribution may occur.

f) The Project will act cumulatively with past negative region medium accidental medium to low to low moder not significant activities in that depending on the location -term long-term high ate and volume, disturbance of vegetation could occur as a result of an inadvertent spill, drilling mud release or product release, or from associated clean-up and reclamation activities.

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated (Table 7.10). Consequently, the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on vegetation will be not significant.

7.2.4 Water Quality and Quantity The Project may act cumulatively with past and future disturbances in that an incremental change in water quality may occur. Past activities that have affected water quality are largely attributed to previous oil and gas development (leases and pipelines) as well as timber harvesting operations (see Table 7.11).

TABLE 7.11

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON WATER QUALITY

Page 7-15

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Acting Potential Adverse Residual Spatial Temporal in Combination with the Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Effect Boundary Boundary Proposed Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 1 Minor localized Footprint Construction − No projects/activities with N/A N/A N/A alteration of natural to Local to Operation residual effects acting in drainage patterns may combination with the Project occur until trench have been identified. settlement is complete. 2 Potential reduction in Footprint Construction − Past activities: forestry The Project will act No additional See surface water quality to Region activities, utility activities, cumulatively with past and mitigation is Table 7.12 of due to suspended transportation development, proposed activities in that warranted. the ESA for solids during instream and oil and gas activities. surface water quality is evaluation of construction of isolated − Other proposed activities reduced. significance. and open cut crossings including those listed in Table 7.1. − Project-related activities that could interact with the above activities include clearing; strippings salvage, storage and replacement; seed mix selection; reclamation; and operations. 3 Potential reduction in Footprint Construction − Past activities: forestry The Project will act No additional See surface water quality to Region activities, utility activities, cumulatively with past and mitigation is Table 7.12 of due to an inadvertent transportation development, proposed activities in that warranted. the ESA for drilling mud release and oil and gas activities. surface water quality is evaluation of during HDD crossings − Other proposed activities reduced. significance. including those listed in Table 7.1. − Project-related activities that could interact with the above activities include clearing; strippings salvage, storage and replacement; seed mix selection; reclamation; and operations. 4 Potential contamination Footprint Construction − No projects/activities with N/A N/A N/A of surface water due to to Local to Operation residual effects acting in spills or product combination with the Project release during have been identified. construction or operation. 5 Potential contamination Footprint Construction − No projects/activities with N/A N/A N/A of groundwater due to to Local to Operation residual effects acting in spills or product combination with the Project release during have been identified. construction or operation.

Page 7-16

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.12

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON WATER QUALITY

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY a) Potential reduction in surface water quality negative region medium- accidental medium to low to low moderate not significant due to suspended solids during instream term long-term high construction of isolated and open cut crossings. b) Potential reduction in surface water quality negative region short to accidental medium to low to low moderate not significant due to an inadvertent drilling mud release medium- long-term high during HDD crossings. term

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated (Table 7.12). Consequently, the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on water quality will be not significant.

7.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat Potential adverse residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project on the fish and fish habitat environment are listed in Table 7.1 of this ESA along with the identification of other projects or activities acting in combination with the Project, as well as the Predicted Cumulative Residual Effect and additional mitigation measures.

There were no other projects of activities identified as acting in combination with the Project with regards to the temporary blockage of fish movement during isolated water course crossings and, therefore, will not be further discussed in the cumulative effects assessment.

The Project may act cumulatively with past, present and future activities in that:

• an incremental change in riparian habitat may occur; and

• an incremental change in fish and fish habitat may occur (see Table 7.13).

Page 7-17

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.13

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Potential Adverse Spatial Temporal Acting in Combination with the Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Residual Effect Boundary Boundary Proposed Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation FISH AND FISH HABITAT 1 Clearing or Region Past − Past and present activities: The Project will act No additional See disturbance of riparian Development transportation cumulatively with past mitigation is Table 7.14 vegetation within the to Operation development, oil and gas and proposed activities warranted. the ESA for construction right-of- activities, and utility in that an incremental evaluation of way and temporary activities. change in riparian and significance. workspace during − Project-related activities instream habitat may construction and that could interact with the occur. operation. above activities include 2 Alteration of instream Region Past clearing, strippings habitat at trenched Development salvaging, grading, crossings and to trenching, backfilling, temporary vehicle Construction reclamation of approaches crossings. to water crossings, vehicle crossing installation and removal, and bank restoration. 3 Increase in Local Construction − No projects/activities with N/A N/A N/A suspended solids residual effects acting in during instream combination with the construction at Project have been trenched crossings. identified. 4 Potential for increased Local Construction − No projects/activities with N/A N/A N/A fish mortality or injury residual effects acting in due to construction combination with the activities may occur. Project have been identified. 5 Temporary blockage Local Construction − No projects/activities with N/A N/A N/A of fish movement residual effects acting in during isolated combination with the watercourse crossings Project have been may occur. identified. 6 Potential Region Construction − Present and future N/A N/A N/A contamination of and Operation activities: forestry, instream and riparian transportation habitat from spills or development, oil and gas product release during activities, and utility construction and activities. operation. − Project-related activities that could interact with the above activities include clearing, strippings salvaging, grading, trenching, backfilling, reclamation of approaches to water crossings, vehicle crossing installation and removal, and bank restoration.

Page 7-18

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.13 Cont'd

The Project may act cumulatively with past and present activities including forestry, oil and gas activities (previous pipeline crossings), transportation activities (i.e., roads) and utility activities. The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of these predicted cumulative residual effects is provided below.

TABLE 7.14

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance FISH AND FISH HABITAT a) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative local short-term periodic short to long- medium high high not significant proposed activities in that an incremental term change in riparian and instream habitat may occur.

Page 7-19

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

The cumulative residual effect of a change in riparian habitat will act cumulatively with past projects in the area including forestry activities, transportation, utility and oil and gas activities. As discussed in Section 6.0 of this ESA, disturbed riparian areas will be seeded with the appropriate native seed mix along with a quick establishing native cover crop. Additional revegetation efforts such as transplanting shrubs or willow stakes will be undertaken at select locations where shrubbery was present prior to construction.

The cumulative residual effect of pipeline construction on riparian vegetation is considered to be of low magnitude, and reversible in the medium to long-term, depending on the pre-existing vegetation community (e.g., grasses and shrubs regenerate within several years, while tree canopy regrowth is expected to extend into the long-term) (Table 7.14).

Mitigative measures will be implemented to minimize the risk of small spills during the construction of the Project. Contingency plans are in place to address the containment and clean up of spills. Should a spill of fuel, lubricant or other hazardous material occur within or near a watercourse during construction, fish habitat could be adversely affected. The risk of a release during operation that could affect fish habitat is increased with the addition of each liquid pipeline to the area. Although the effects of a large release into a watercourse by any of the liquid pipelines would be of high magnitude and could be considered significant, the probability of a release from NGTL acting cumulatively with a release from another pipeline or transportation activity (e.g., rollover in a stream) is low. No additional mitigation is warranted.

As shown in Table 7.14 of this ESA, there are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated. Consequently, the cumulative residual effects of the construction and operation of the Project on fish and fish habitat will be not significant.

7.2.6 Wetlands The construction and operation of the Project may act cumulatively in the RSA in that an incremental alteration of wetland habitat function and/or hydrologic function may occur. Past and present activities that have affected wetlands in the RSA include utility activities, forestry activities, creation of roads, and oil and gas activities.

TABLE 7.15

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON WETLANDS

Page 7-20

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.15 Cont'd

Standard and effective mitigative measures will be used by NGTL for construction through the wetlands crossed by the Project (see Section 6.0 and Appendices 6 and 7 of the ESA). In addition, since the draining of wetlands is no longer an acceptable practice for forestry, oil and gas or other developments, no permanent loss of wetlands due to proposed or on-going development is anticipated. It is anticipated that the cumulative residual effects on the wetlands to be crossed by the proposed pipeline will be of low magnitude. It is anticipated that the habitat and hydrologic functions of the wetlands will be restored within the short to medium-term following Project construction (Table 7.16).

TABLE 7.16

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON WETLANDS

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance WETLANDS a) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative region short- term Isolated to medium-term low high high not significant proposed activities in that an incremental occasional alteration of wetland function may occur.

b) The Project will act cumulatively with past negative region short-term Isolated to medium to low to low high not significant activities in that an incremental alteration of occasional, long-term high wetland habitat and/or hydrologic function accidental may occur as a result of an accidental spill or product release.

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated or economically compensated (Table 7.16). Consequently, the cumulative residual effects of the construction and operation of the Project on wetlands will be not significant.

7.2.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The Project may act cumulatively with past, present and future activities in that:

• an incremental alteration of wildlife habitat will occur;

• an incremental reduction in habitat quality and potential increase in wildlife mortality or injury due to spills or product release may occur;

Page 7-21

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

• an incremental change to wildlife movement patterns may occur; and

• an incremental increase in wildlife mortality rates may occur.

TABLE 7.17

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Acting Potential Adverse Residual Spatial Temporal in Combination with the Proposed Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Effect Boundary Boundary Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 1 Areas of wildlife habitat Region Past − Past activities: utilities The Project will act No additional See will be altered including Development developments, transportation cumulatively with past and mitigation is Table 7.18 of forested areas, to Operation development, and oil and gas proposed activities in that warranted. this ESA for watercourses, activities. an incremental alteration evaluation of wetlands and drainage − Other proposed activities of wildlife habitat will significance. crossings. including those listed in occur. Table 7.1. − Project-related activities that could interact with the above activities include clearing, strippings salvaging, trenching, backfilling and reclamation. 2 Reduction in habitat Region Past − Past activities: utilities The Project will act No additional See quality due to spills or Development developments, transportation cumulatively with past and mitigation is Table 7.18 of product release. to Operation development, and oil and gas proposed activities in that warranted. the ESA for activities. an incremental reduction evaluation of − Other proposed activities in habitat quality and significance. including those listed in potential increase in Table 7.1. wildlife mortality or injury − Project-related activities that due to spills or product could interact with the above release may occur. activities include clearing, strippings salvaging, trenching, backfilling and reclamation. 3 Temporary changes to Region Construction − Present activities: utilities The Project will act No additional See wildlife movement developments, transportation cumulatively with past and mitigation is Table 7.18 of during active development, and oil and gas proposed activities in that warranted. this ESA for construction period. activities. an incremental change to evaluation of 4 Displacement of Region Construction − Other proposed activities wildlife movement patterns significance. wildlife away from the including those listed in may occur as a result of right-of-way during Table 7.1. construction. construction with − Project-related activities that resultant use of could interact with the above potentially suboptimal activities include clearing, habitat during non- strippings salvaging, grading, critical periods. trenching, backfilling and reclamation.

Page 7-22

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.17 Cont'd

Past activities that have affected wildlife habitat in the LSA and RSA are largely attributed to forestry and oil and gas activities. Other past activities contributing to the alteration of wildlife habitat over time include transportation activities (i.e., for the creation of roads), and utility (i.e., powerlines) development. Proposed projects that may act cumulatively in the RSA include other proposed activities listed in Table 7.1.

The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of these predicted cumulative residual effects and the significance evaluation is provided below.

Alteration of Wildlife Habitat It is expected that NGTL will minimize the amount of disturbance to native vegetation and clearing in the area by paralleling existing linear disturbances for the entire length of the proposed route. Given the existing level of alteration of wildlife habitat in the RSA as a result of development (forestry, oil and gas), the additional clearing resulting from the Project will contribute to a minor decrease in native vegetation.

The Project area is active with existing and new anthropogenic disturbances affecting approximately 23% of the LSA and 16% of the RSA. The Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) (74.5 ha) will increase disturbance within the LSA by less than 1% and increase disturbance within the RSA by approximately 0.08%. Overall disturbance of potential wildlife habitat by the Project has been substantially reduced by paralleling existing rights-of-way to the extent feasible and utilizing existing rights-of-way as temporary workspace where feasible. Disturbed areas through native vegetation segments will be seeded with the appropriate native seed mix.

Studies have shown that roads and other linear disturbances can have a more substantial ecological effect on wildlife habitat, auditory or sensory disturbance of wildlife and wildlife mortality than just cutblocks (Kasworm and Manley 1991, 1998, Dyer 1999, Gibeau 2000, Dzus 2001, Kansas 2002). Roads contribute more to forest fragmentation than cutblocks by dissecting large patches into smaller pieces and by converting forest interior habitat into edge habitat (Reed et al. 1996). Therefore, in order to describe the existing cumulative disturbance in the Project area in a meaningful context to determine the cumulative effect on key wildlife species with special conservation status or economic value, the extent of "roadless" core areas (i.e., unaffected by linear features) within the RSA was determined. Similar to the assessment methodology used for past projects in the area, a 500 m buffer was applied to all linear disturbance within the RSA to account for the indirect impact of these activities may have on the wildlife in the area (Gibeau 2000). The buffering resulted in the identification of 526 polygons within the RSA, however, none of these polygons offered a minimum patch size of 9 km² (see Figure 7.2). This minimum patch size is based on an adult female grizzly bear's daily foraging radius where they have a low probability of encountering people (a security area) (Gibeau and Herrero, 1998). Since no "roadless" potential core areas resulted from the 500 m buffering, another buffering analysis was applied.

Avian forest interiors are defined as all forested areas not fragmented by anthropogenic linear disturbances. All forest edge was buffered by 200 m to provide an estimate of the actual amount of

Page 7-23

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 interior habitat available (Schaffer et al. 1999). All patches of less than 20 ha in size were deleted from further consideration because they do not meet the minimum patch size for most neo-tropical interior forest nesting birds (McIntyre 1995). The resulting residual habitat cores are presumed to reflect the amount of secure nesting habitat. Within the RSA, a 200 m buffer around all existing forest edges resulted in the identification of 381 avian forest interior habitat patches (see Figure 7.3). Out of 381 existing patches, 17 patches will be impacted by other proposed projects in the area and only one of the patches will be reduced to less than 20 ha (19.7 ha). However, none of the 381 patches will be impacted by the Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) Project.

Proven mitigative measures to minimize disturbance and reclaim wildlife habitat, will be implemented during pipeline construction (see Section 6.0 and Appendices 6 and 7 of this ESA). The cumulative residual effect of the Project on alteration of wildlife habitat is considered to be of low to medium magnitude (Table 7.18).

Page 7-24

RGE. 8 W6M RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 W6M TWP. 69 TWP.

W i l s o n La k e

C am p Ir b e o q 12-24-68-7 W6M ll u o i C s C r r !. e e e 68 TWP. k [KP 0 e W k i l so n C ST40 re e k B a ld M o u n ta i n C r e e k

!.KP 5

!. KP 10 TWP. 67 TWP.

S t o n y C r e e k

!. KP 15

k e e r C k n e i e a r t C n u d l o

M G

d l

B !. KP 20 TWP. 66 TWP.

i g

o !. u P KP 25 n i n t to a i C n r e e C k k r e e e C r e p k e e St

!. KP 30 TWP. 65 TWP.

!. KP 35

v KP 38 i !. R [ k n 6-2-65-7 W6M a t b C u TWP. 64 TWP.

FIGURE 7.2 SCALE: 1: 150,000 Fort km St. John Peace River EXISTING ROADLESS CORE AREA BASED ON A J J 0 1 2 3 4 J 500 M ZONE OF INFLUENCE OF Dawson Fairview Creek (All Locations Approximate) J THE PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. High Slave Prairie J Lake J CUTBANK RIVER LATERAL LOOP Grande J Prairie (BALD MOUNTAIN SECTION) August 2010 6922 Mapped JValleyview Area [ Tie-In Location ST40 Highway DATA SOURCES: Fox Regional Study Area, Roadless Core Area: JCreek

TERA Environmental Consultants 2010; Grande Prince George Stream/River J Pipeline Routing: Midwest Survey 2010; JCache Road: GeoBase® 2008; Edson Regional Study Area J Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004, Hinton Lake J Natural Resources Canada 2007. B R I T I S H ALBERTA Existing Roadless COLUMBIA Proposed Pipeline Route Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate Core Area this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 6922_CEA_Figure7.2_Roadless_Core_Area_Rev0.mxd RGE. 8 W6M RGE. 7 RGE. 6 RGE. 5 W6M TWP. 69 TWP.

W i l s o n La k e

C am p Ir b e o q 12-24-68-7 W6M ll u o i C s C r r !. e e e 68 TWP. k [KP 0 e W k i l so n C ST40 re e k B a ld M o u n ta i n C r e e k

!.KP 5

!. KP 10 TWP. 67 TWP.

S t o n y C r e e k

!. KP 15

k e e r C k n e i e a r t C n u d l o

M G

d l

B !. KP 20 TWP. 66 TWP.

i g

o !. u P KP 25 n i n t to a i C n r e e C k k r e e e C r e p k e e St

!. KP 30 TWP. 65 TWP.

!. KP 35

v KP 38 i !. R [ k n 6-2-65-7 W6M a t b C u TWP. 64 TWP.

FIGURE 7.3 SCALE: 1: 150,000 Fort km St. John Peace River EXISTING AVIAN FOREST INTERIOR AREA BASED ON A J J 0 1 2 3 4 J 200 M ZONE OF INFLUENCE OF Dawson Fairview Creek (All Locations Approximate) J THE PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. High Slave Prairie J Lake J CUTBANK RIVER LATERAL LOOP Grande J Prairie (BALD MOUNTAIN SECTION) August 2010 6922 Mapped JValleyview Area [ Tie-In Location ST40 Highway DATA SOURCES: Fox Regional Study Area, Avian Forest Interior Area: JCreek

TERA Environmental Consultants 2010; Grande Prince George Stream/River J Pipeline Routing: Midwest Survey 2010; JCache Road: GeoBase® 2008; Edson Regional Study Area J Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004, Hinton Lake J Natural Resources Canada 2007. B R I T I S H ALBERTA Existing Avian Forest COLUMBIA Proposed Pipeline Route Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate Interior Area this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 6922_CEA_Figure7.3_Avian_Forest_Interior_Area_Rev0.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Changes in Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife Mortality due to Spills or Product Release The Project may act cumulatively with past, present and future oil and gas activity in the LSA in that a reduction in habitat quality and potential increase in wildlife mortality or injury due to spills or product release may occur. The scale of the effect is dependent on wildlife exposure, the size, type and location of spill or product released (e.g., ingestion from contaminated vegetation, mineral soil or water; inhalation of contaminated air). The cumulative residual effects associated with reduced wildlife habitat quality and a potential increase in wildlife mortality due to spills or product release could potentially be long-term and of high magnitude. Several contingency plans and ERPs are in place in the event there is a spill or product release associated with the Project. (Section 6.0 Accidents and Malfunctions element, and Appendix 6 of this ESA). Pipeline companies in the area will also have similar contingency plans and ERPs. In the event of an encounter with wildlife during the construction phase of the Project, the Wildlife Encounter Contingency Plan will be implemented (Appendix 6 of this ESA).

Although the risk of a spill or release that could affect wildlife and wildlife habitat is increased with the addition of each pipeline to the area, prevention measures (e.g., design of the pipeline to meet all applicable standards and regulations, safety training, appropriate construction methods, and on-going monitoring and preventative maintenance) are expected to reduce the likelihood of a spill or product release having substantial effects to low (Table 7.18).

Changes to Wildlife Movement Patterns In addition to the past, present and future activities described above, the Project may act cumulatively with the following proposed activities within the RSA listed in Table 7.1.

Under a worst-case scenario of the Project being constructed sequentially within the same season as several other projects in the area, there is potential for wildlife to be displaced away from the Project area for a prolonged period. Project construction activities may create residual effects that are likely to act cumulatively with present and future sources of disturbances, such as sensory disturbance resulting from construction activities and general traffic in the RSA; and alteration to line of sight. These sensory disturbances may result in changes to wildlife movement patterns. Section 6.0 outlines several mitigative measures to minimize the effect of construction on wildlife movement patterns.

The adverse cumulative residual effect on wildlife movement patterns is anticipated to be low to medium in magnitude and reversible in the short to medium-term (Table 7.18).

Wildlife Mortality The Project may act cumulatively with the following proposed activities within the RSA listed in Table 7.1, which also have the potential to increase wildlife mortality rates should the Project be constructed concurrently with other proposed projects. Wildlife mortality rates may increase due to vehicle/wildlife collisions during construction and a spill or product release (discussed above).

Given that mitigation measures to reduce the potential for wildlife mortality on the commute to and from the job site and along the construction right-of-way will be implemented during construction of the Project and other projects, the probability of the construction of the Project and other projects resulting in mortality levels that would place a local wildlife population at risk is considered to be low (Table 7.18). No additional mitigative measures are warranted. In the event of an encounter with wildlife during the construction phase of the Project, the Wildlife Encounter Contingency Plan will be implemented (Appendix 6 of this ESA).

Page 7-27

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.18

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT a) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative region short-term periodic medium to medium high high not significant proposed activities in that an incremental long-term alteration of wildlife habitat will occur.

b) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative region short-term periodic; medium to medium low high not significant proposed activities in that an incremental accidental long-term to high reduction in habitat quality and potential increase in wildlife mortality or injury due to spills or product release may occur.

c) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative region short-term periodic; short to medium high modera not significant proposed activities in that an incremental continuous medium- te change to wildlife movement patterns may term occur.

d) The Project may act cumulatively with ongoing negative region short-term isolated short -term low low high not significant and other activities in the area which require travel that also have the potential to increase wildlife mortality during construction.

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated (Table 7.18). Consequently, the cumulative residual effects of construction and operation of the Project on wildlife and wildlife habitat will be not significant.

7.2.8 Species at Risk The predicted cumulative residual effect associated with the construction and operation of the Project on the species at risk is the loss or alteration of potential habitat for rusty blackbirds and common nighthawks. Past and present activities that have affected species at risk include forestry activities, creation of roads, and oil and gas activities. Other proposed activities include those listed in Table 7.1.

Page 7-28

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.19

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SPECIES AT RISK

Mitigative measures as outlined in the Wildlife Habitat Assessment will be used by NGTL to minimize the effects on species at risk (see Section 6.0 and Appendices 6 and 7 of the ESA). It is anticipated that the cumulative residual effects on species at risk will be of medium magnitude and reversible in the medium- term following Project construction (Table 7.20).

TABLE 7.20

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SPECIES AT RISK

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance SPECIES AT RISK a) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative region long-term periodic medium to medium high high not significant proposed activities if mitigative measures do long-term not completely protect the rare plant sites, some loss or alteration of the local rare plant population may occur. b) The Project may act cumulatively with past negative region short-term isolated medium- medium high moderate not significant and other proposed activities in that an term incremental loss or alteration of potential habitat for rusty blackbirds and common nighthawks occur during construction.

Page 7-29

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated (Table 7.20). Consequently, the cumulative residual effects of the construction and operation of the Project on species at risk will be not significant.

7.2.9 Air Quality Construction of the Project will act cumulatively with present air emission sources in that an incremental increase in air emissions, fugitive dust and smoke will occur.

Although GHG emissions associated with the Project will act cumulatively with

Air quality in the RSA is characteristic of that expected in a rural-remote area. Present air emission sources include vehicle arising from transportation activities, forestry activities involving equipment use, oil and gas development (including ongoing pipeline and facility maintenance activities), and utility activities (e.g., maintenance on powerline rights-of-way).

TABLE 7.21

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON AIR QUALITY

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Acting Potential Adverse Residual Spatial Temporal in Combination with the Proposed Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Effect Boundary Boundary Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation AIR QUALITY 1 Increase in air Region Construction − Ongoing sources: emissions The Project may act No additional See emissions during from forestry equipment, traffic cumulatively with mitigation is Table 7.22 of construction on highways and local roads ongoing sources of warranted. the ESA for − Other proposed activities emissions and other evaluation of including those listed in activities in that an significance. Table 7.1. incremental increase in air emissions will occur − All Project-related activities as a result of involving equipment could construction activities. interact with the above activities. 2 Increase in GHG Internation Construction − Ongoing and future sources of The Project may act No additional See emissions during al and global GHG emissions. cumulatively with mitigation is Table 7.22 of construction and site- Operations − All Project-related activities sources contributing to warranted. the ESA for specific maintenance involving equipment could global GHG emissions in evaluation of activities and interact with the above that an incremental significance. operations activities. increase in GHG emissions will occur as a result of construction and operations and maintenance activities. 3 Increase in nuisance Region Operations − Ongoing sources: emissions The Project may act No additional See air emissions during from forestry equipment, traffic cumulatively with mitigation is Table 7.22 of site-specific on highways and local roads ongoing sources of warranted. the ESA for maintenance activities − Other proposed activities emissions and other evaluation of and operations including those listed in activities in that an significance. Table 7.1. incremental increase in air emissions will occur − All Project-related activities as a result of operations involving equipment could and maintenance interact with the above activities. activities.

Page 7-30

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Acting Potential Adverse Residual Spatial Temporal in Combination with the Proposed Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Effect Boundary Boundary Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation 4. Increase in air-borne Region Construction − Ongoing sources: emissions The Project may act No additional See dust arising from from forestry equipment, traffic cumulatively with mitigation is Table 7.22 of construction traffic on on highways and local roads ongoing sources of warranted. the ESA for the right-of-way or − Other proposed activities emissions and other evaluation of access roads during including those listed in activities in that an significance. pipeline construction. Table 7.1. incremental increase in fugitive dust will occur − All Project-related activities as a result of involving equipment could construction activities. interact with the above activities.

Future potential air emission sources include construction of other proposed activities including those listed in Table 7.1. The primary sources of emissions during construction for the Project and other ongoing and future oil and gas projects in the RSA will be from fuel combustion while transporting work crews to and from the work site, as well as from the operation of heavy equipment required for construction. The duration of these events will be medium-term, and all activities are expected to stay within relevant federal, provincial and local air quality legislation, objectives and guidelines. The cumulative residual effect of the Project on emissions during construction and operation is expected to be reversible in the immediate (e.g. dust) to long-term (GHG) and of low magnitude (Table 7.22).

TABLE 7.22

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON AIR QUALITY

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance AIR QUALITY a) The Project may act cumulatively with negative region short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant ongoing sources of emissions and other activities in that an incremental increase nuisance air emissions will occur as a result of construction activities. b) The Project may act cumulatively with negative international immediate periodic long-term low high moderate not significant sources contributing to GHG emissions in to short- that an incremental increase in GHG will term occur as a result of construction and operations and maintenance activities. c) The Project may act cumulatively with negative region immediate periodic long-term low high moderate not significant ongoing sources of emissions and other to short- activities in that an incremental increase in term air emissions will occur as a result of operations and maintenance activities. d) The Project may act cumulatively with negative region short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant ongoing sources of emissions and other activities in that an incremental increase in fugitive dust and smoke will occur.

Page 7-31

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922 cumulative residual effects of the construction and operation of the Project on air quality will be not significant.

7.2.10 Acoustic Environment The Project will act cumulatively with present sources of noise in that an incremental increase in nuisance noise will occur during construction.

Present activities in the LSA that the Project will act cumulatively with include: forestry activities; vehicle and equipment traffic; overhead flights; and on-going pipeline maintenance activities and operation of existing facilities. Future potential sources of noise include construction of other proposed activities including those listed in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.23

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

With the implementation of mitigative measures described in Section 6.0 and the Appendix 6 of this ESA to reduce the potential for noise effects during the construction and operation of the Project, the cumulative residual effect on nuisance noise during construction and maintenance activities is considered to be reversible in the short-term and of low magnitude (Table 7.24).

TABLE 7.24

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT a) The Project may act cumulatively with negative local short- isolated short- low high high not significant ongoing sources of noise and other term term proposed activities in that an incremental increase in nuisance noise will occur during construction.

Page 7-32

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated (Table 7.24). Consequently, the cumulative residual effect of construction and operation of the Project on the acoustic environment will be not significant.

7.2.11 Human Occupancy and Resource Use The Project will act cumulatively with past, present and future activities in that:

• disruption of land use activities may occur during construction of the pipeline; and

• an incremental reduction in land base for timber harvest may occur.

TABLE 7.25

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE

The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of these predicted cumulative residual effects and the significance evaluation is provided below.

Page 7-33

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.26

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE a) The Project will act cumulatively with other negative local short - isolated short-term low high high not significant proposed activities to potentially disrupt term outfitting, hunting and trapping activities during pipeline construction. b) The Project will act cumulatively with other negative local short- isolated short-term low high high not significant proposed activities in that an incremental term reduction in land base for timber harvest may occur.

Pending the construction schedules of proposed and approved oil and gas developments in the LSA (see Table 7.1), the Project may act cumulatively with these projects to potentially disrupt land use activities (i.e., outfitting, trapping, hunting and fishing activities) during construction. Mitigative measures proposed in Section 6.0 and Appendices 6 and 7 of the ESA, including appropriate notification and, if applicable, compensation will greatly reduce the residual effects resulting from the construction of these projects. The cumulative residual effect of the Project on land use activities is considered to be of low magnitude (Table 7.26).

Land Base for Timber Harvest The Project will act cumulatively with past, present and future activities in that an incremental reduction in land base for timber harvest may occur. There will be approximately 74.5 ha of clearing by the Project. Past, present and future activities include: transportation activities; transportation development; forestry; oil and gas activities; and utility activities. The residual effect of the disruption of forestry activities and loss of land available for forestry use is considered to be of low magnitude and reversible in the long- term, since upon abandonment, the Project Footprint is expected to revegetate and the loss of the land base for forest harvesting will be restored.

Summary As identified in Table 7.26, there are no situations for human occupancy and resource use that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic cumulative residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on human occupancy and resource use will be not significant.

7.2.12 Heritage Resources The predicted cumulative residual effect associated with the construction of the Project on heritage resources is that surface sites and previously unidentified buried heritage resources may be disturbed. Past activities that have potentially affected heritage resources include transportation activities, oil and gas activities, utility activities in the area. Other projects which may act cumulatively with the proposed Project include other proposed activities including those listed in Table 7.1.

Page 7-34

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.27

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON HERITAGE RESOURCES

With the adoption of the appropriate mitigative strategy outlined in Section 6.0 of this ESA and the Heritage Resource Discovery Contingency Plan (Appendix 6 of this ESA), valuable heritage resource information pertaining to any heritage resource sites, which could otherwise be adversely affected during construction activities, may be retrieved and documented. The permanent loss of in situ data will be balanced by the information gained through the mitigation strategy. With the compensatory effects of mitigative studies, the cumulative residual effect of the Project on heritage resources is considered to be of low magnitude (Table 7.28).

TABLE 7.28

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON HERITAGE RESOURCES

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance HERITAGE RESOURCES a) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative region short-term periodic permanent low low high not significant other proposed activities in that surface sites and previously unidentified buried heritage resources may be disturbed.

As identified in Table 7.28, there are no situations for heritage resources that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic cumulative residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on heritage resources will be not significant.

7.2.13 Traditional Land Use NGTL has initiated consultation with Aboriginal Communities with interest in the Project. TLU work is ongoing and will be completed with all remaining groups who express an interest in fall 2010.

Page 7-35

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

The predicted cumulative residual effect associated with the construction of the Project on traditional land use includes the potential loss or disturbance of site-specific traditional land use identified during the ongoing consultation and the disruption of subsistence hunting, fishing and trapping that may happen during construction. Past activities that have potentially affected traditional land use include timber harvesting activities, transportation activities, oil and gas activities and utility activities in the area. Other projects which may act cumulatively with the proposed Project include other proposed activities including those listed in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.29

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON TRADITIONAL LAND USE

With continued consultation as well as the adoption of the appropriate mitigative strategy outlined in Section 6.0 of this ESA, disruption of traditional land use may be reduced. With the compensatory effects of mitigative studies, the cumulative residual effect of the Project on traditional land use is considered to be of low magnitude (Table 7.30).

Page 7-36

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.30

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON TRADITIONAL LAND USE

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance TRADITIONAL LAND USE a) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative region short-term isolated short-term low low high not significant other proposed activities in that traditional land use may be disturbed.

b) The Project will act cumulatively with past and negative local short -term isolated short-term low high high not significant other proposed activities in that subsistence hunting, fishing and trapping may be disrupted.

As identified in Table 7.30, there are no situations for traditional land use that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic cumulative residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on traditional land use will be not significant.

7.2.14 Social and Cultural Well-Being Construction of the Project will act cumulatively with other activities in the RSA (see Table 7.31).

TABLE 7.31

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING

Page 7-37

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Future potential activities that may impact social and cultural well-being include construction of other proposed projects including those listed in Table 7.1 (see Table 7.32).

TABLE 7.32

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING a) The Project may act cumulatively with other negative regional short-term isolated short-term low high moderate not significant activities in that a disruption of community life may occur as a result of construction activities. b) The Project may act cumulatively with other positive regional short-term isolated short-term low high moderate not significant activities in that there will be an increase of contracting procurement and job opportunities during construction.

As identified in Table 7.32, there are no situations for social and cultural well-being that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic cumulative residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on social and cultural well-being will be not significant.

7.2.15 Human Health Construction of the Project will act cumulatively with other activities in the RSA (see Table 7.33).

Page 7-38

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.33

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON HUMAN HEALTH

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Acting Potential Adverse Spatial Temporal in Combination with the Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Residual Effect Boundary Boundary Proposed Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation HUMAN HEALTH 1 The Project may Region Construction − Ongoing sources: emissions The Project may act No additional See disrupt normal, daily from forestry equipment, cumulatively with other mitigation is Table 7.34 living activities of traffic on highways and local activities in that warranted. of the ESA some land users. roads disruption normal, daily for − Other proposed activities living activities of some evaluation including those listed in land users may occur as of Table 7.1. a result of construction significance. activities. − All Project-related activities involving equipment could interact with the above activities. 2 The Project may Region Construction − Ongoing sources: emissions The Project may act No additional See affect the health of from forestry equipment, cumulatively with other mitigation is Table 7.34 land users in the traffic on highways and local activities in that the warranted. of the ESA event of an accident roads health of land users may for or malfunction. − Other proposed activities be affected in the event evaluation including those listed in of an accident or of Table 7.1. malfunction during significance. construction. − All Project-related activities involving equipment could interact with the above activities.

Future potential activities that may impact human health include construction of other proposed projects including those listed in Table 7.1 (see Table 7.34).

TABLE 7.34

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON HUMAN HEALTH

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance HUMAN HEALTH a) The Project may act cumulatively with other negative Regional short-term isolated long-term low high moderate not significant activities in that disruption normal, daily living activities of some land users may occur as a result of construction activities. b) The Project may act cumulatively with other negative Regional Immediate periodic long-term low high moderate not significant activities in that the health of land users may to short- be affected in the event of an accident or term malfunction during construction.

As identified in Table 7.34, there are no situations for human health that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic cumulative residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on human health will be not significant.

Page 7-39

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

7.2.16 Infrastructure and Services The Project will act cumulatively with existing activities (oil and gas or forestry activities) and other proposed projects, including those listed in Table 7.1, in that:

• increased traffic on highways and local roads used to access the Project area may occur during construction in localized areas;

• an increased demand on waste management facilities may occur during construction; and

• an increased demand on emergency services may occur during construction.

TABLE 7.35

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Acting Potential Adverse Residual Spatial Temporal in Combination with the Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Effect Boundary Boundary Proposed Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 1 Increased traffic on Region Construction − Other proposed activities The Project will act No additional See highways and local including those listed in cumulatively with other mitigation is Table 7.36 roads used to access Table 7.1. proposed activities in that warranted. of this ESA the construction right- − All Project-related activities increased traffic on for of-way. involving road use could highways and local roads evaluation of interact with the above used to access the area may significance. activities to increase the occur. amount of traffic in the region. 2 Temporary increase in Region Construction − Other proposed activities The Project will act No additional See waste flow to regional including those listed in cumulatively with other mitigation is Table 7.36 landfill sites may occur. Table 7.1. proposed activities in that an warranted. of this ESA − All phases of construction increased demand on waste for could interact with the above management facilities may evaluation of activities. occur during construction. significance. 3 Change in availability Region Construction − Other proposed activities The Project will act No additional See of local including those listed in cumulatively with other mitigation is Table 7.36 accommodation during Table 7.1. proposed activities in that an warranted. of the ESA construction − All phases of construction increased demand on local for could interact with the above accommodation may occur evaluation of activities. during construction. significance. 4 Change in capacity of Region Construction − Other proposed activities The Project will act No additional See existing emergency including those listed in cumulatively with other mitigation is Table 7.36 services during Table 7.1. proposed activities in that an warranted. of the ESA operation of pipeline − All phases of construction increased demand on for and associated could interact with the above emergency services may evaluation of facilities. activities. occur during construction. significance.

The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of these predicted cumulative residual effects and the significance evaluation is provided below.

Mitigative measures outlined in Section 6.0 and the Traffic Management Plan (Section 3.0 and Appendix 6 of this ESA) will minimize vehicle and equipment traffic on highways and local roads. Given the above mitigation strategy, the cumulative residual effect on highway and local road traffic is considered to be of low magnitude (Table 7.36).

In terms of waste management, the contractors for the Project will follow the Waste Management Plan (Section 1.0 of Appendix 6 of this ESA) and will liaise with the municipalities to ensure that the local sanitary landfill and other applicable landfills will be accessible during Project construction. Given the above mitigation strategy, the cumulative residual effect of the Project on waste management is of short-term reversibility and considered to be of medium magnitude (Table 7.36).

Page 7-40

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

There are several contingency plans, management plans and systems that will be in place to prevent accidents and minimize risk of injury to workers during construction and operation of the Project, including the Emergency Response, Spill Contingency and Fire Contingency Plans. All workers and visitors to the job site will participate in a safety orientation before permission to access the job site is granted.

Despite these measures, incidents may arise in which emergency services are warranted (e.g., ambulance, fire, police, hospital). Emergency services are available from a major centre located in close proximity to the Project (Grande Prairie). Given the existing capacity of emergency services provided in Beaverlodge and Grande Prairie, it was deemed that the RSA has adequate emergency services to meet the needs of the Project and other proposed projects in the area. It is highly unlikely that concurrent emergencies would occur among different projects that would have substantial cumulative effects; therefore, the cumulative residual effect of the Project on emergency services is considered to be of low magnitude and low probability (Table 7.36).

TABLE 7.36

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES a) The Project will act cumulatively with other negative local short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant proposed activities in that increased traffic on to highways and local roads used to access the region area may occur. b) The Project will act cumulatively with other negative local short-term isolated immediate to low to high high not significant proposed activities in that an increased to short-term medium demand on waste management facilities may region occur during construction. c) The Project will act cumulatively with other negative local short-term isolated short-term low to high high not significant proposed activities in that an increased to medium demand on local accommodation may occur region during construction d) The Project will act cumulatively with other negative local short-term isolated short-term low low high not significant proposed activities in that an increased to demand on emergency services may occur region during construction.

As identified in Table 7.36, there are no situations for infrastructure and services that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic cumulative residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on infrastructure and services will be not significant.

7.2.17 Employment and Economy The Project will act cumulatively with existing activities (oil and gas activities, and forestry) and other proposed projects, including those listed in Table 7.1 (see Table 7.37).

Page 7-41

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.37

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY

The rationale used to evaluate the significance of each of these predicted cumulative residual effects and the significance evaluation is provided below (Table 7.38).

TABLE 7.38

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY a) The Project will act cumulatively with other positive local short-term isolated short-term low high high not significant proposed activities in that increased contract to procurement opportunities may occur. region b) The Project will act cumulatively with other positive local short-term isolated short-term low to high high not significant proposed activities in that local businesses to medium and residents may benefit from employment region opportunities during construction. c) The Project will act cumulatively with other positive local short-term isolated short-term low to high high not significant proposed activities in that it will result in an to medium increase in revenue for provincial and federal region governments

Page 7-42

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

As identified in Table 7.38, there are no situations for employment and economy that meet the criteria of a significant socio-economic cumulative residual effect. Consequently, it is concluded that the cumulative residual effects of pipeline construction and operation on employment and economy will be not significant.

7.2.18 Accidents and Malfunctions The following potential adverse residual effects had no other projects or activities identified as acting in combination with the Project and, therefore, will not be further discussed in the cumulative effects assessment:

• fires may adversely affect adjacent vegetation and, in very rare situations, affect wildlife and adjacent property; and

• rupture of utility lines could lead to interruption of services, contamination of soil or water depending on the location and severity of the rupture, and fires in the case of gas.

TABLE 7.39

POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

Page 7-43

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

TABLE 7.39 Cont'd

Project/Activities with Adverse Residual Effects Acting in Potential Adverse Residual Spatial Temporal Combination with the Proposed Predicted Cumulative Mitigative Significance Effect Boundary Boundary Project Residual Effect Measures Evaluation 4 Disturbance of Region Operation − Present activities such as residential Multiple accidents or No additional See vegetation/habitat developments, utilities malfunctions may adversely mitigation is Table 7.40 of could result during developments, transportation affect human health, warranted. the ESA for clean-up and development and oil and gas property, or the evaluation of reclamation efforts activities. environment. significance. following a horizontal − Other proposed activities including directional drilling mud those listed in Table 7.1 release on land or − All phases of construction and riparian areas. operation could interact with the above activities. 5 Depending on the Region Operation − Present activities such as residential Multiple accidents or No additional See volume and location of developments, utilities malfunctions may adversely mitigation is Table 7.40 of the release, a release developments, transportation affect human health, warranted. the ESA for of horizontal directional development and oil and gas property, or the evaluation of drilling mud into a activities. environment. significance. watercourse may affect − Other proposed activities including aquatic ecosystems. those listed in Table 7.1 − All phases of construction and operation could interact with the above activities. 6 A transportation Region Construction − Other proposed activities including Multiple accidents or No additional See accident may cause those listed in Table 7.1. malfunctions may adversely mitigation is Table 7.40 of injury to people or − All phases of construction and affect human health, warranted. the ESA for property, or the wildlife or may result in operation could interact with the evaluation of environment. fire contamination of above activities. significance. lands and water depending on the location and severity of the accident. 7 A pipeline failure may Region Operation − Present activities such as residential Multiple accidents or No additional See adversely affect aquatic developments, utilities malfunctions may adversely mitigation is Table 7.40 of ecosystems, adjacent developments, transportation affect human health, warranted. the ESA for vegetation or wildlife development and oil and gas property, or the evaluation of and wildlife habitat, as activities. environment. significance. well as impact human − Other proposed activities including health, property or those listed in Table 7.1 livestock, depending on − All phases of construction and the severity of the operation could interact with the incident. above activities.

The predicted cumulative residual effect associated with the construction and operation of the Project on accidents and malfunctions is that multiple accidents or malfunctions may adversely affect human health, property or the environment.

The significance of a failure of multiple pipeline systems would depend on the type (e.g., level of hydrogen sulphide [H2S] concentration in the product) and volume of products released, sensitivity of the location of the failures, proximity of human receptors, proximity of the product releases, and how close in time the product releases occurred. While substantial adverse effects could occur as a result of an accident or malfunction related to the construction or operation of the Project and other oil and gas activity in the area, the potential is low for an accident or malfunction that would have substantial cumulative effects. Pipeline ruptures are historically uncommon as noted in the NEB (2009) table entitled Canadian Regulated Pipelines - Pipeline Ruptures. NGTL and other operators will have in place, an ERP that outlines methods to immediately respond to accidents and malfunctions, as well as to contain and clean-up after these incidents. Therefore, NGTL and other operators have the plans, equipment/materials and training to address spills, releases or rupture of two or more pipelines at the same or similar time and location. The likelihood of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude resulting from accidents and malfunctions is low (Table 7.40).

Page 7-44

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Further discussion of the potential residual effects of a product release or spills on soils, vegetation, water quality, wetlands, fish and fish habitat, and wildlife and wildlife habitat is provided in the previous Sections 7.2.2 to 7.2.7 of this ESA.

TABLE 7.40

SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF IDENTIFIED RESIDUAL EFFECTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

Temporal Context

1 Duration Duration Frequency Reversibility Predicted Cumulative Residual Effects Balance Impact Context Spatial Magnitude Probability Confidence Significance ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS a) Multiple accidents or malfunctions may negative region short-term accidental immediate to high low moderate not significant adversely affect human health, property, or permanent the environment.

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated (Table 7.40). Consequently, the cumulative residual effects of construction and operation of the Project on the occurrence of accidents and malfunctions will be not significant.

7.3 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Cumulative Residual Effects of the Project The cumulative residual environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) Project are not unlike those routinely encountered during pipeline and associated facility construction in a forested setting.

For each adverse residual effect associated with the Project, other past, present and future developments whose adverse residual effects that have or may act in combination with the Project were identified. Past activities identified include forestry, transportation (i.e., creation of roads), utilities (e.g., powerlines) and oil and gas development (i.e., pipelines, facilities) in the area.

Potential cumulative residual effects associated with the following biophysical and socio-economic elements were identified:

• physical elements such as physical environment, soil and soil productivity, water quality and quantity, air quality and acoustic environment;

• biological elements such as vegetation, wetlands, fish and fish habitat, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk; and

• socio-economic elements such as human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, traditional land use, social and cultural well-being, infrastructure and services, and employment and economy. The cumulative effect assessment considered the worst-case scenario for the particular element in question. The worst-case scenario was determined to be more than one project being constructed within the same season. No mitigative measures were deemed warranted in addition to those presented in Section 6.0 of this ESA. Only accidental events with a low probability of occurrence, such as a pipeline rupture, were accessed as having the potential for a adverse cumulative residual effect of a high magnitude. In this case, the ERP will be implemented to respond to these accidents, as well as contain and clean-up these incidents.

Page 7-45

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

There are no situations where there is a high probability of occurrence of a permanent or long-term cumulative effect of high magnitude that cannot be technically mitigated. Through the implementation of the mitigative strategies, the cumulative residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline and associated facilities on the biophysical and socio-economic elements were considered to be not significant.

Page 7-46

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STRATEGY TransCanada’s Health, Safety and Environment (HS&E) Commitment Statement applies to all phases of NGTL's work (Figure 8.1 at the end of Section 8.0). NGTL is committed to the implementation of the spirit and intent of the policy in regards to the Project. 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 Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section). Along with this commitment, NGTL has agreed to follow the mitigative measures presented in the EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA) and the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 7 of this ESA), to minimize the potential for adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed Project.

8.1 Environmental Protection Plan In order to achieve the overall objective of avoiding or minimizing environmental effects and to ensure compliance with the mitigation described in Section 6.0 of this ESA, site-specific environmental mitigative measures have been developed that are presented in the EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA) and have been mapped on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 7 of this ESA). The EPP has been written in construction specification format so that it can be easily interpreted and followed in the field, as well as to facilitate inclusion in the construction contract bid documents and specifications. Should any conflict in the construction contract and the EPP arise, the more stringent conditions will apply. Workers who show careless or wanton neglect of the environment or disregard the mitigative measures outlined in the EPP will be removed from the work site.

The EPP and the accompanying Environmental Alignment Sheets are a compilation of all the background environmental work (e.g., impact assessment, supporting studies - Appendices 1 through 5 of this ESA) and public engagement program associated with the Project. Therefore, in addition to the EPP and the Environmental Alignment Sheets, applicable supporting documentation will be accessible in the construction field office.

8.2 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.

8.3 Environmental Inspection NGTL will retain the services of an Environmental Inspector during all critical phases of construction of the Project. The Environmental Inspector will be familiar with pipeline construction in a forested setting as well as with the potential effects and mitigation available to avoid or minimize these construction effects. The Environmental Inspector will be responsible to promote and monitor continuous and consistent compliance with this ESA, as well as all permit/approval conditions, environmental laws and guidelines, and other environmental commitments. The Environmental Inspector will report directly to the NGTL Construction Manager and indirectly to the NGTL Environmental Advisor, and be recognized as an integral part of the construction management team. The NGTL Environmental Advisor will be available to the Environmental Inspector for decision-making support and resolution of environmental resource issues arising onsite.

The Environmental Inspector will monitor construction and prepare reports of activities and conditions. The environmental issues identified in Section 6.0 of this ESA and the implementation of the mitigative measures in the EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA) will be carefully monitored by the Environmental Inspector. If the mitigative measures are not found to be effective, the Environmental Inspector will consult with one or more of the following as required and as appropriate; Construction Manager; and NGTL's Environmental Advisor. The Environmental Inspector will also be responsible for enforcing compliance with environmental commitments, approvals and permits, recommending additional or alternative mitigative measures, noting potentially adverse environmental effects, identifying site-specific issues, and determining the status of environmental issues following construction of the pipeline.

Page 8-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

The Environmental Inspector will have the authority to modify or suspend construction activity at a particular site if a problem has been detected. A responsibility of the Environmental Inspector will be to make recommendations with regard to environmental shut-down (e.g., wet/thawed soil conditions).

Following completion of construction, the Environmental Inspector will work with NGTL's Environmental Advisor in the preparation of the initial post-construction report making use of daily reports, photos and records of government liaison. This report will include a description of the construction program and mitigative measures employed, as well as the identification of the status of outstanding environmental issues.

8.4 Issue Monitoring NGTL will strive to carry out the Project in an environmentally responsible manner through the assessment of environmental issues, the planning and implementation of mitigative measures and contingency plans to address those issues, and the establishment of compliance initiatives such as environmental orientation and environmental inspection.

If an unforeseen environmental issue arises during construction for which no mitigative measures have been approved, the Environmental Inspector will formulate a plan-of-action in consultation with the applicable government agencies. The plan-of-action will include measures to assess and avoid or mitigate the environmental effect.

Page 8-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Figure 8.1 Health, Safety and Environment Commitment Statement

Page 8-3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

9.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

9.1 Post-Construction Monitoring Program The PCM Program will include an assessment of reclamation, revegetation, erosion control and any weed problem areas along the construction right-of-way. The PCM Program will also take into consideration recommendations made and any unresolved issues identified in the initial post-construction report. Reclamation monitoring involves an assessment of the final clean-up along the construction right-of-way, which includes: grade restoration; upper surface material replacement; seeding; drainage restoration; debris removal; trench settlement; and slope stability. Revegetation monitoring involves an assessment of the re-establishment of vegetation and success of revegetation, as well as the identification of any weed infestations along the construction right-of-way. Erosion monitoring involves an assessment of the effect of wind and water along the construction right-of-way, as well as the assessment of effectiveness of any erosion control measures implemented during construction.

PCM Programs are recommended to be conducted by NGTL during the first and second complete growing seasons following construction. By initiating these programs in years one and two, issues identified and remedial actions taken during the first year can be assessed and any residual outstanding issues can be dealt with during the next year. Any corrective actions taken will be documented. These post-construction monitoring reports will be filed with the NEB. Outstanding right-of-way issues arising after the first two years of construction will be identified through NGTL continuous monitoring of all aspects of right-of-way integrity and addressed if warranted.

The purpose of the PCM Program will be to:

• evaluate the recovery of the areas disturbed during construction;

• identify environmental issues that may have arisen post-construction; and

• recommend and co-ordinate the implementation of any remedial measures that are warranted and additional special measures to address any outstanding or new environmental issues.

9.1.1 Construction Right-of-Way Inspection Site inspections will be conducted along the pipeline construction right-of-way during the PCM Program. Additional expertise will be sought to assess other issues that may arise, if necessary. The appropriate specialists will recommend and oversee the implementation of any remedial measures and conduct follow-up site inspections.

9.1.2 Government Agency Consultation It is recommended that NGTL and/or its consultants initiate a post-construction dialogue with government agency representatives for Crown land (e.g., BC MOFR) along the proposed pipeline route after construction clean-up to discuss reclamation progress to date, and address and/or resolve any issues. NGTL has an on-going Public Awareness Program with stakeholders. Any future construction-related issues that are raised during on-going operation will be addressed by NGTL.

9.1.3 Vegetation Monitoring The pipeline right-of-way will be visually inspected by a Reclamation Specialist during the first growing season following construction for vegetation issues, such as weed infestations or poor vegetation establishment. The timing of vegetation monitoring will be in the late summer/early fall when vegetation is mature enough for accurate identification and evaluation. Particular attention will be given to areas of terrain instability that may be prone to erosion. Detailed vegetation assessments will be conducted, if warranted, at sites where reclamation problems are identified. The above process will be continued during the second growing season after construction.

Page 9-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

9.1.4 Operation and Maintenance Activities After the first spring and summer following construction, NGTL's construction and environmental personnel will monitor the pipeline right-of-way, as needed, to ensure any issues related to trench subsidence, slope or bank erosion or wind and water erosion of soil are identified early and mitigative measures implemented in a timely basis. Following the second year after construction, routine monitoring by NGTL representatives will be continuous for the life of the pipeline.

9.1.5 Documentation and Reporting The PCM Program will document, using the Environmental Commitment Tracking List, all environmental issues identified for the pipeline or other Project component. Issues that have been successfully mitigated will be listed as resolved. The Environmental Issues Commitment List will also identify any locations with unresolved environmental issues and the mitigation activities planned by NGTL to resolve these issues.

9.2 Long-Term Compliance Strategy NGTL strives to maintain high standards for pipeline construction and operation. Objectives and targets for health, safety and environment performance have been established, implemented and documented. These standards contribute to public confidence in the system.

NGTL’s commitment of avoiding or minimizing environmental effects will continue into the operation and decommissioning and abandonment phases of the pipeline. TransCanada’s HS&E Management System will be applied in the operation of the Project. Priorities for TransCanada's HS&E staff in assimilating the Project into their routine operation will be checking that any specific commitments made in the regulatory approvals are followed through and that follow-up recommendations made in the PCM Program are addressed, particularly with respect to any unresolved issues.

Operating and Maintenance Procedures contain the day-to-day procedures for safe and efficient operation and maintenance of the pipeline and include general reference information, as well as safety and emergency response procedures. Emergency response procedures are part of a comprehensive program that also includes an Emergency Response Plan (ERP).

The new pipeline and facilities will have specific Integrity Management Programs (IMPs) ensuring the ongoing requirements of this pipeline and facilities are met throughout their respective service lives. Internal inspection is an integral part of TransCanada's current IMP and the proposed in-line inspection facilities will be designed to allow passage of various types of in-line inspection including cleaning tools, and high and low resolution in-line inspection tools. The focus of an IMP is to prevent leaks or ruptures caused by duty-related deterioration such as corrosion and cracks. This goal is driven by the corporate commitment to protect the health and safety of employees, the general public and the environment. On-going monitoring programs are employed to determine whether deterioration or damage has occurred.

Page 9-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

10.0 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES NGTL initiated a comprehensive environmental field program in the summer of 2010 in order to:

• characterize the physical (including water quality and quantity), biological (including fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk) and human use (including heritage resources, and traditional land and resource use) setting of the Project area;

• identify sensitive and/or unique elements;

• determine the need for any route modifications;

• develop environmental mitigative measures to avoid or reduce potential effects; and

• assess the potential environmental effects that might be caused by or otherwise affect the Project.

Supplemental studies planned for late summer 2010 are discussed below. Supplemental studies will collect additional seasonal information for components studied in early summer 2010. The supplemental studies are not expected to change the significance conclusions identified in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA since mitigation and contingency plans have been developed to address potential findings from the supplemental studies, and have been based on ‘worst case scenarios’. Information obtained during the supplemental studies will be used to refine and augment site-specific environmental protection planning. The proposed site-specific mitigation identified in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA, the EPP (Appendix 6 of this ESA) and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 7 of this ESA) will be updated and re- issued, if warranted, upon the completion of the supporting studies.

Late Summer Rare Plants and Rare Ecological Communities TERA conducted an early summer rare plant survey for the Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) in June 2010. However, to ensure that the project will not impact any late blooming plant species, a late summer rare plant survey will be conducted in August 2010. The results of the late season rare plant survey will be provided to the NEB as a supplemental filing and the Environmental Protection Plan and Environmental Alignment Sheets will be amended, if warranted, to identify measures to be implemented during construction of the Project.

In accordance with the spirit and intent of the Environmental Assessment Best Practice Guide for Wildlife at Risk in Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service 2004), TERA has developed site-specific mitigative measures for all occurrences of rare plant species observed along the proposed pipeline route. Recommended mitigative measures are intended to eliminate or minimize potential construction-related impacts to occurrences of rare plants observed along the proposed pipeline route. TERA recommends that post-construction monitoring be conducted following construction and clean-up activities.

Traditional Land Use Engagement and field work (if required) with Aboriginal communities identified as having an interest in the project will continue this summer/fall. An update of results of this engagement will be provided to the NEB prior to construction.

Page 10-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

11.0 CONCLUSION This ESA for the proposed Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) concludes that the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline will not result in significant adverse environmental or socio-economic effects. The environmental concerns identified are not extraordinary and potential effects arising from construction of the pipeline can be readily mitigated by standard environmental protection measures. Adverse residual environmental effects associated with the construction of the pipeline will generally be reversible in the short-term, of limited areal extent and of low magnitude. Any effect as a result of the proposed Project is not expected to significantly alter the environmental or socio-economic conditions in the region.

Page 11-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

12.0 REFERENCES

12.1 Personal Communications Nelson, F. Administrative Coordinator, Alberta Professional Outfitters Society. Edmonton, Alberta.

Simieritsch, R. Water Technologist, Alberta Environment, Calgary District Office, Calgary, Alberta.

12.2 Literature Cited Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2009a. Surface Water Quality Risk for the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Website: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex10338. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2009b. Groundwater Quality Risk for the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Website: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex10339. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2009c. Aquifer Vulnerability Index for the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Website: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex10331. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2010a. ACIMS Data File Download - Non- Sensitive Element Occurrences and Sensitive Element Occurrences. May 2010. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/datarequests/dataDownloads.aspx. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2010b. Animal - Tracking and Watch Lists. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/animals/default.aspx. Accessed: May 2010.

Alberta Culture and Community Spirit. 2010. Listing of Historic Resources. Cultural Facilities and Historical Resources Division, Alberta Culture and Community Spirit, Edmonton.

Alberta Energy Resources and Conservation Board. 2010. ST-45 Coal Mine Atlas: Operating and Abandoned Coal Mines in Alberta. Website: http://www.ercb.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_240_2579665_0_0_18/. Accessed: July 2010.

Alberta Energy. 2010a. Coal Activity Map. Website: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/xdata/mapProducts/coal.pdf. Accessed: July 2010.

Alberta Energy. 2010b. Metallic and Industrial Minerals Map. Website: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/xdata/mapProducts/metallic.pdf. Accessed: July 2010.

Alberta Environment. 1991. Listings of springs in Alberta. 46 pp.

Alberta Environment. 1999. Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta. Environmental Assurance Division, Science and Standards Branch, Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta. Publication T/483. Website: http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5713.pdf.

Alberta Environment. 2000a. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body. Includes Amendments to February 2007. 26 pp. Website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/codes/PIPELINE.pdf.

Alberta Environment. 2000b. Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Includes Amendments to February 2007. 26 pp. Website: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/codes/CROSSING.pdf.

Alberta Environment. 2006. Grande Prairie Management Area. Water Act Code of Practice Management Area Maps. Website: http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/GrandePrairie.pdf.

Page 12-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Alberta Environment. 2009a. Alberta's River Basins. Website: http://www.environment.alberta.ca/apps/basins/Default.aspx. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Environment. 2009b. Specified Gas Reporting Standard. Evaluation and Reporting Section of the Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Branch, Environmental Assurance. Website: http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/ghg_specified_gas_reporting_standard.pdf. Accessed: July 2010.

Alberta Environment. 2010a. Peace River Basin - River Flows and Levels. Cutbank River near Grande Prairie. AENV website. Data accessed: June 2010. Website: http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/basins/DisplayData.aspx?Type=Figure&BasinID=1&DataType =1&StationID=RCUTGPR.

Alberta Environment. 2010b. Groundwater Information System. Website: http://environment.alberta.ca/1295.html. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Health Services. 2010. Hospitals and Health Facilities. Website: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/files/map-ahs-zones.pdf. Accessed: July 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2005. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species. Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. Website: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatus/Default.aspx.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2007a Mountain Pine Beetle Management Strategy. Pub No. T/154. Edmonton, Alberta. 20 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2007b. Smoky Area Land Management Referral Map. 1:250,000 map.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008. September 24, 2008 Draft Core and Secondary Grizzly Bear Conservation Boundaries. Website: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/BearManagement/docum ents/GrizzlyBear-CoreSecondaryConservationBoundaries-Sep2008.pdf. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009a. Mountain Pine Beetle Management Zones Map. Website: http://www.mpb.alberta.ca/Files/pdf/MountainPineBeetle-ManagementZones2009.pdf. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009b. Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations. Website: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009c. Alberta Guide to Trapping Regulations. Website: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/trappingregs/. Accessed: August 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010a. Alberta Guide to Hunting Regulations. Website: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs/. Accessed: July 2010.

Alberta Tourism Parks and Recreation. 2010a. Parks and Protected Areas (including Crown Reservations). Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/landreferencemanual/docs/pasites_pdfmap.pdf. Accessed: July 2010.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2009a. Environmentally Significant Areas of Alberta. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/default.aspx. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2009b. Search Parks. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/. Accessed: June 2010.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2010b. Land Reference Manual. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/landreferencemanual/default.aspx. Accessed: June 2010.

Page 12-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 2000a. Post-Construction Environmental Report for Spread 5S. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants.

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 2000b. Post-Construction Monitoring Report. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants.

Anderson, P.G., B.R. Taylor, and G.C. Balch. 1996. Quantifying the effects of sediment release on fish and their habitats. Vancouver, British Columbia and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Eastern BC Habitat Unit and Alberta Area Habitat Management Division. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2346.

Aquatera Utilities Inc. 2010. Aquatera Services. Website: http://www.aquatera.ca/Default.htm. Accessed: July 2010.

ATCO Electric. 2010. Service Area. Website: http://www.atcoelectric.com/Our_services/service_area/servicearea.asp. Accessed July 2010.

ATCO Gas. 2010. Service Area. Website: http://www.atcogas.com/Our_Services/Service_area/Our_service_area.asp. Accessed July 2010.

BirdLife International, Bird Studies Canada, and Nature Canada. 2010. Important Bird Areas. Website: http://www.ibacanada.com/. Accessed: July 2010.

Borneuf, D. 1983. Springs of Alberta. Alberta Research Council. Earth Sciences Report 82-3. 95 pp.

Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands. 2010. The List of Wetlands of International Importance. Website: http://ramsar.org/. Accessed: June 2010.

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

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 1993. Environmental Operating Guidelines for the British Columbia Upstream Petroleum Industry.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 1996. Hydrostatic test water management guidelines. CAPP Publication #19960014.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 1999. Environmental operating practices of the upstream petroleum industry Alberta operations - Pipelines Volume.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 2003. Environmental operating practices of the upstream petroleum industry BC operations - Pipelines Volume.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 2005. Planning Horizontal Directional Drilling for Pipeline Construction. 62 pp.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2002. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Total particulate matter. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2007. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Summary Table. Update 7.1 December 2007. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1994. The Authority's Guide to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2003. Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Environmental Assessment: General Guidance for Practitioners. Website: http://www.ceaa-

Page 12-3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=A41F45C5-1&offset=1&toc=show. Accessed: November 2009.

Canadian National Railway Company. 2010. CN Network Map. Website: http://cnebusiness.geomapguide.ca/. Accessed: July 2010.

Canadian Nature Federation. 2010. Important Bird Areas. Website: http://www.ibacanada.com/. Accessed: June 2010.

Canadian Wildlife Services. 2010. Migratory Bird Sanctuaries. Website: http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=231. Accessed: June 2010.

City of Grande Prairie. 2010. City of Grande Prairie Website: http://www.cityofgp.com/Default.htm. Accessed: July 2010.

Clare, G. 1998. A Very Brief History of the Peace River Area. Website: http://www.calverley.ca/BRIEFHISTORY.html. Accessed February 2009

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2010a. The COSEWIC Species List. Accessed: June 2010. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2010b. The COSEWIC Candidate List. Data accessed: June 2010. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm#p3.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2010c. Canadian species at risk. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm. Accessed: July 2010.

Discover the Peace Country. 2010. Discover the Peace Country Visitor's Guide. Website: http://www.discoverthepeacecountry.com/. Accessed: July 2010.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2010. Projects. Website: http://www.ducks.ca/province/ab/projects/index.html. Accessed: July 2010.

Dyer, S. 1999. Movement and distribution of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in response to industrial development in northeastern Alberta. M.Sc. thesis, University of Alberta. 106 pp.

Dzus, E. 2001. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 30. Edmonton, AB. 47 pp.

Dzus, E. 2001. Status of the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 30. Edmonton, Alberta. 47 pp.

Environment Canada. 2010a. The Ecological Framework of Canada. Courtesy of the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas. Website: http://ecozones.ca/english/index.html. Accessed: June 2010

Environment Canada. 2010b. Archived Hydrometric Data Cutbank River Near Grande Prairie (07GB001) Monthly Mean Discharge (m3/s). Website: http://www.wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/graph/graph_e.html?stn=07GB001.

Environment Canada. 2010c. National Wildlife Areas: Provinces and Territories. Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ap-pa/default.asp?lang=En&n=058F76A4-1. Accessed: May 2010.

Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. 1994. A reference guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Addressing cumulative environmental effects. Prepared by the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office. Hull, Quebec. 23 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1995. Freshwater intake end-of-pipe fish screen guidelines. Prepared by Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa.

Page 12-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1999. Fish Screening Directive. Last updated July 26, 1999.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2003. Navigable Waters Protection Program Pipeline Crossing Guidelines. Central and Arctic Region. 4 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010. Pacific Regional Operational Statements. Website: http://www- heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisionsupport/os/operational_statements_e.htm. Accessed: July 2010.

Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System. 2010. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Area-specific search request and website: http://xnet.env.gov.ab.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=fw_mis_pub.

Fryer, G., G. Dunn and P. Anderson. 2002. Rare plant impact mitigation for the Alliance Pipeline Project. Poster presentation at the 7th International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of- Way Management in Calgary, Alberta, September 9-13. 2002.

Gartman, D.K. 1991. Pipeline construction techniques to minimize wetland impacts. In Wetlands and Pipelines: proceedings of the INGAA Foundation First Annual National Environmental Symposium. October. Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, USA. p. 1-24.

Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. 1996. Environmentally Significant Areas Inventory of Selected Portions of the Boreal Forest Natural Region, Alberta. Alberta Department of Environmental Protection, Resource Data Division, Edmonton, Alberta. December 1996. 143 pp. + Appendices.

Gibeau, M. 2000. A Conservation Biology Approach to Management of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park, Alberta. Ph.D. Dissertation. Resources and the Environment Program, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Gibeau. M., S. Herrero, B. McLellan and J. Woods. 2001.Managing for Grizzly Bear Security Areas in Banff National Park and the Central Canadian Rocky Mountains. Ursus 12:121-130.

Grande Prairie Regional Tourism Association. 2010. Grande Prairie Region. Website: http://gptourism.ca/. Accessed; July 2010.

Hamilton, W.N., M.C. Price and C.W. Langenburg. 1999. Geological Map of Alberta. Alberta Geological Survey, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Map No. 236. 1:100,000 map.

Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling, and D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative effects assessment practitioners guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2010. First Nation Profiles. Website: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Index.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed: July 2010.

Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. 1995. Environmental As-Built Report Capacity Expansion Program. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd.

Kansas, J. 2002. Status of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 37, Edmonton, Alberta. 43 pp.

Kasworm, W. and T. Manley. 1991. Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana. 8th International Conference on Bear Research and Management. pp 79-84.

Kasworm, W. and T. Manley. 1998. Grizzly bear and black bear ecology in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana. Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks.

McIntyre, N.E. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on avian diversity. Landscape Ecology, 10, no. 2, 85-99

Page 12-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Municipal District of Greenview No. 16. M.D. of Greenview Website: http://www.mdgreenview.ab.ca/municipal/mdg/webcms.nsf/0/98111A6DC056BF7A872572EA007 7E79F?opendocument. Accessed: July 2010.

National Wetland Working Group. 1988. Wetlands of Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 24. Sustainable Development Branch, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, and Polyscience Publications Inc., Montreal, Quebec. 425 pp.

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.

Natural Regions Committee. 2009. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Complied by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852.

Natural Resources Canada. 2003a. Map of permafrost in Canada. Website: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/land/permafrost. Accessed: June 2010.

Natural Resources Canada. 2003b. Map of wind erosion in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climatechange/potentialimpacts/winderosionclimatesens itivity. Accessed: June 2010.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007a. Map of major landslides in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/landslides/landslides. Accessed: June 2010.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007b. Map of major floods in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/floods/majorfloods. Accessed: June 2010.

Natural Resources Canada. 2008. Map of major earthquakes in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/earthquakes/ majorearthquakes. Accessed: July 2010

Natural Resources Canada. 2009a. Map of major avalanches in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/naturalhazards1999/majora valanches. Accessed: June 2010.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009b. Map of forest fire hotspots in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/forest_fires/hotspots2007. Accessed: June 2010.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009c. Map of fire danger rating in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/forest_fires/ firedangerrating. Accessed: June 2010.

Newcombe, C.P. 1994. Suspended sediment in aquatic ecosystems: ill effects as a function of concentration and duration of exposure. Victoria, British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11: 72-82.

Parks Canada. 2010. National Parks of Canada. Website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/index_E.asp. Accessed: June 2010.

Pawlowicz, J.G. and M.M. Fenton. 1995. Drift thickness map of Alberta. Alberta Geological Survey. 1:2,000,000 map.

Pettapiece, W.W. 1986. Physiographic subdividsions of Alberta. Agriculture Canada. 1:1,500,000 map.

Page 12-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Cutbank River Lateral Loop (Bald Mountain Section) August 2010 / 6922

Reed, R.A., J. Johnson-Barnard and W.L. Baker. 1996. Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology Volume 10(4): 1098-1106.

Reid, S., A. Jalbert, S. Metikosh and M. Bender. 2002. A performance measurement framework for pipeline water crossing construction. In Goodrich-Mahoney, John W., D.F. Mutrie, and C.A Guild, eds. The Seventh International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, Calgary, Alberta. 697-703.

Schaffer, W, B. Beck, J. Beck, R. Bonar and L. Hunt. 1999. Northern Goshawk Reproductive Habitat Suitability Index Model Version 5. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta. Website: http://www.fmf.ab.ca/HabitatSuitability/NOGO_f.pdf. p. 478-49.

Schmidt, J, C. Tammi, D. Cameron, E. Steel and J. Evans. 2001. Evaluating the effects of muds on wetlands from horizontal directional drilling (HDD) within natural gas transmission line rights-of- way. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights of Way Management. Calgary, Alberta. Sept. 9-13, 2000.

Statistics Canada. 2010. 2006 Community Profiles. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census- recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed: July 2010.

Town of Beaverlodge. 2010. Town of Beaverlodge Website: http://beaverlodge.ca/. Accessed: July 2010.

Town of Grande Cache. 2010. Town of Grande Cache Website: http://grandecache.ca/front.php. Accessed July 2010.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2005. Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory. Website: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fcsi-rscf/home-accueil.aspx?Language=EN&sid=wu323182232660. Accessed: June 2010.

Twardy, A.G. and I.G.W. Corns. 1980. Wapiti Map Area, Alberta. Bulletin 39. Alberta Research Council. Edmonton, Alberta. 134 pp.

US North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2010. Bird Conservation Regions. Website: http://www.nabci-us.org/map.html. Accessed: July 2010.

Zimmerman, R.E. and P.L. Wilkey. 1992. Pipeline Corridors through wetlands. Proceedings of the 1992 International Gas Research Conference. November. Orlando, Florida, USA. H.A. Thompson (ed.)

Page 12-7