suite 210, 517 tenth avenue sw north montney project

450 – 1 Street SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 5H1

Tel: (403) 920-7816 Fax: (403) 920-6970 Email: [email protected]

April 1, 2021

Filed Electronically

Canada Energy Regulator Suite 210, 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2R 0A8

Attention: Mr. Jean-Denis Charlebois, Secretary of the Commission

Dear Mr. Charlebois:

Re: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) North Montney Project (Project) Certificate GC-125 (Certificate) Certificate Condition 15 – Final Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan File OF-Fac-Gas-N081-2013-10 02

In accordance with Certificate Condition 15 and NGTL’s related commitments,1 NGTL encloses the Final Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan for the Project, for Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator (Commission) approval. NGTL confirms that a copy of this report will be provided to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and appropriate provincial authorities.

If the Commission requires any additional information related to this filing, please contact me by phone at (403) 920-7816 or by email at [email protected].

Yours truly, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

Original signed by

Crystal Begin Regulatory Project Manager Regulatory Facilities, Canadian Natural Gas Pipelines

Enclosure

cc: Kent Rowden, Canada Energy Regulator

1 CER Filing ID:C09650-1 and CER Filing ID: C11491

FINAL CARIBOU HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN

NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. NORTH MONTNEY PROJECT

MARCH 2021

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. A wholly owned subsidiary of

TransCanada PipeLines Limited Calgary, Alberta

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney Project Final Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan

March 2021 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION ................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1 1.2 Organization of the Final CHRP ........................................................................4

2.0 UPDATES SINCE THE REVISED PRELIMINARY CARIBOU HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN .............................................................................................................. 5

3.0 GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ................................................. 6

3.1 Goal ....................................................................................................................6 3.2 Objectives, Performance Indicators, and Targets ..............................................6

4.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................ 10

4.1 Regulatory Consultation ..................................................................................10 4.2 Aboriginal Engagement ...................................................................................13

5.0 RESIDUAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND CARIBOU HABITAT RESTORATION .................... 15

5.1 Project Interaction with Caribou Habitat .........................................................15 5.2 Quantification of Project Effects and Residual Project Effects .......................16 5.3 Habitat Restoration Plan ..................................................................................17

6.0 FUTURE FILINGS ON CARIBOU HABITAT RESTORATION .............................................. 24

6.1 Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program ........24 6.2 Caribou Monitoring Reports ............................................................................25

7.0 SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................. 26

8.0 CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................ 27

8.1 Adaptive Management .....................................................................................27 8.2 Monitoring .......................................................................................................28 8.3 Research Initiatives ..........................................................................................28 8.4 Provincial Authority Guidance ........................................................................29 8.5 Aboriginal Engagement ...................................................................................31 8.6 Industry Collaboration .....................................................................................32 8.7 Lessons from NGTL Habitat Restoration ........................................................33

9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 36

Final Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

North Montney Project

Page ii March 2021

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Interaction with the Graham Caribou Range ........................................ 3 Figure 5-1 Standard Disturbance Hierarchy Process Used to Quantify Project

Effects ............................................................................................................. 18 Figure 5-2 Stepwise Approach for Quantifying Project Effects ....................................... 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Concordance between Conditions 15(b) and Final CHRP ............................... 2 Table 2-1 Revision Log of Updates in the Final CHRP .................................................... 5 Table 3-1 Targets to Measure Final CHRP Objectives ..................................................... 7 Table 5-1 Project Interaction with the Graham Caribou Range ...................................... 15 Table 5-2 Summary of Existing Direct Disturbance Overlapping the Project

Footprint and Operational ROW on Crown Land within the Graham Caribou Range ................................................................................................ 16

Table 5-3 Summary of Habitat Restoration Measures Planned for the Project .............. 21 Table 5-4 Residual Project Effects on Caribou Habitat on Crown Land ........................ 23 Table 7-1 Planned Schedule for Habitat Restoration Implementation within

Caribou Range and Related Filings ................................................................ 26

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Preliminary Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan Filing History and Related Links

Appendix B Glossary of Terms

Appendix C Extent of Existing Disturbance and Projects Effects

Appendix D Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Toolkit

Appendix E Photos of Potential Habitat Restoration Measures

Appendix F Typical Drawings

Appendix G Footprint Elements and Planned Habitat Restoration Measures

Appendix H Aerial Photos of the Project Footprint – Adjacent Landcover and Selected Treatment Units (Pre-Implementation), June 18, 2020 (Source: CCI Inc. and SolSpec)


March 2021 Page 1 of 39

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION

This section introduces the Final Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan (Final CHRP) for the North Montney Project (Project) and outlines how this document is organized.

1.1 Introduction

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited, an affiliate of TC Energy Corporation, received approval from the Canada Energy Regulator’s (CER) predecessor, the National Energy Board (NEB), to construct and operate the Project (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity GC-125 [hereafter GC-125]) subject to conditions.1

The Project’s pipeline component is comprised of two sections: Aitken Creek Section and Kahta Section. The Aitken Creek Section is 181.5 km, of which 8.18 km occurs within the Graham Caribou Range (see Figure 1-1).The Kahta Section is approximately 24 km and does not overlap with caribou range.2 NGTL filed a Revised Preliminary CHRP for the Project with the NEB on August 21, 2015.3 The NEB approved the Revised Preliminary CHRP on October 22, 2015.4 The filing history and related links for the Revised Preliminary CHRP are provided in Appendix A.

Condition 15 of GC-125 defines the scope of the Final CHRP as follows:

b) Final CHRP to be filed on or before 1 November after the first complete growing season following the commencement of operation for the Section 52 Facilities. This updated version of the CHRP shall include, but not be limited to:

i) the preliminary CHRP, with any updates identified in a revision log that includes the rationale for any changes to decision making criteria;

ii) a complete table describing caribou habitat restoration sites, including but not limited to location, spatial area, description of habitat quality, site-specific restoration activities and challenges;

iii) specification drawings for the implementation of each restoration method;

iv) maps or Environmental Alignment Sheets showing the locations of the sites;

1 NEB Filing ID: A70644-2. 2 Condition 15 of GC-125 states that NGTL shall file preliminary and final versions of a CHRP for each of the

Aitken Creek and Kahta Sections; however, the Kahta Section was shortened in 2018 to the extent that it no longer overlapped with caribou range.

3 NEB Filing ID: A72289. 4 NEB Filing ID: A73379.

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/1060220/2759738/2788084/A70644-2_NEB_-_Certificate_GC-125_%E2%80%93_NOVA_Gas_%E2%80%93_North_Montney_%E2%80%93_GH-001-2014.pdf?nodeid=2788776&vernum=-2

https://apps.cer-rec.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/2813080




Page 2 of 39 March 2021

v) evidence of how further consultation feedback from Environment Canada and appropriate provincial authorities is integrated into the plan; and

vi) a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the total area of direct disturbance to caribou habitat that will be restored, the duration of spatial disturbance, and the aerial extent of the resulting residual effects to be offset, which also includes indirect disturbance.

At the time of filing with the Board, NGTL shall provide a copy of the filings to Environment Canada and the appropriate provincial authorities.

Table 1-1 provides concordance between the specific elements of Condition 15(b) and the section(s) of this Final CHRP that address them.

Table 1-1: Concordance between Condition 15(b) and Final CHRP

Condition Number Condition Element Section of the Final

CHRP 15(b)i The preliminary CHRP, with any updates identified in a

revision log that includes the rationale for any changes to decision making criteria

Appendix A, Section 2.0

15(b)ii A complete table describing caribou habitat restoration sites, including but not limited to location, spatial area, description of habitat quality, site-specific restoration activities and challenges

Section 5.3

15(b)iii Specification drawings for the implementation of each restoration method

Appendix F

15(b)iv Maps or Environmental Alignment Sheets showing the locations of the sites

Appendix G

15(b)v Evidence of how further consultation feedback from Environment Canada and appropriate provincial authorities is integrated into the plan

Section 0, Section 8.0

15(b)vi A quantitative and qualitative assessment of the total area of direct disturbance to caribou habitat that will be restored, the duration of spatial disturbance, and the aerial extent of the resulting residual effects to be offset, which also includes indirect disturbance

Section 5.2, Section 5.3, Appendix C

This Final CHRP incorporates learnings from NGTL’s recently filed caribou plans and was developed in consideration of federal and provincial regulatory consultation, Aboriginal engagement, NGTL and industry experience, emerging applied research, and monitoring outcomes.

NORTH MONTNEY PROJECT

Project Interaction with the Graham Caribou RangeFIGURE NO. 1-1

ProjectLocation

Last

Mod

ified

: 12/

22/2

020

By:

dje

nkin

s

Farrell Creek

unsigned FSR

Bery

l Pra

irie

Rd

83+000

84+000

85+000

86+000

87+000

88+000

89+000

90+000

91+000

92+000

93+000

94+000

95+000

PREPARED FOR

121511126-0190

0 400 800 1,200 1,600

Metres

Kilometre Post

Aitken Creek Section

Graham Caribou Range

Private Land

Other Road

Resource Road

Unclassified Road

Watercourse

Waterbody

PREPARED BY

1:35,000

\\ca0

002-

ppfs

s03\

geom

atic

s\C

lient

s\Tr

ansC

anad

a\A

itken

Cre

ek\F

igur

es\W

ildlif

e\20

2008

26_N

MM

L_O

MP

_add

ition

al_t

ask_

djen

kins

\figu

res_

CH

RP

_for

_nor

th_m

onte

nay\

1_1_

Pro

ject

_Int

erac

tion_

with

_the

_Gra

ham

_Car

ibou

_Ran

ge.m

xd

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N

Disclaimer: This map is for illustrative purposes to support this Stantec project; questions can be directed to the issuing agency.

Sources: Base data: Canvec, GeoBase & Province of British ColumbiaNote: 1 - Environment Canada, 2011. Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou(Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada: 2011 Update. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 102 pp. plus appendices.

BC

USA

AB

NWTYT




1.2 Organization of the Final CHRP

This Final CHRP is organized into nine sections, as follows:

Section 1.0: introduction and organization of the Final CHRP Section 2.0: updates since the Revised Preliminary CHRP (revision log) Section 3.0: goal, objectives, and performance indicators Section 4.0: summary of caribou habitat restoration consultation and engagement

with federal and provincial regulators and Aboriginal groups Section 5.0: updated residual project effects and a summary of planned habitat

restoration measures Section 6.0: description of future filings on caribou habitat restoration Section 7.0: schedule for habitat restoration and related future filings Section 8.0: description of the elements contributing to the continual improvement of the approach to caribou habitat restoration and offsetting Section 9.0: list of references cited in the document

Appendix B provides a glossary of terms used in this Final CHRP.



2.0 UPDATES SINCE THE REVISED PRELIMINARY CARIBOU HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN

Table 2-1 is a revision log that summarizes the updates in this Final CHRP that have occurred since the Revised Preliminary CHRP (Appendix A) was approved. Rationale for changes to decision-making criteria are provided, where relevant.

Table 2-1: Revision Log of Updates in the Final CHRP

Revised Preliminary CHRP Final CHRP Rationale Included Kahta Section because of overlap with the Pink Mountain caribou range

Excludes Kahta Section because there is no longer an overlap with the Pink Mountain caribou range.

Project footprint change. The Kahta Section was shortened in 2018 (see Section 1.1)

Residual project effects were not quantified

As-built project footprint used to calculate residual project effects

Required for Final CHRP

Access management proposed for Aitken Creek Section; mounding and rollback identified as techniques

Rollback was implemented at one location, but this measure was implemented to create microsites for planting rather than to manage access (see Section 5.3)

The Preliminary Offset Measures Plan* identified that access management was not needed for the Aitken Creek Section

Habitat restoration plan was developed using the planned project footprint

As-built project footprint was used to develop the final habitat restoration plan

Required for Final CHRP

Target planting density for coniferous seedlings proposed: • Unmounded – 1,600–2,000

stems/ha• Mounded – 1,200–1,400 stems/ha

(depending on mound density)

Planting density for coniferous seedlings specified as: • 1,600–2,400 seedlings per ha

planting density

Revised to make distinction between target density versus planned planting density; additionally, reforestation specialists recommend higher planting densities to account for winter mortality (with no distinction between mounded and unmounded sites)

Bioengineering/shrub staking at riparian areas with erosion risk proposed

Shrub staking not specified No riparian areas with erosion risk that required bioengineering or shrub staking were identified within caribou range on Crown land.

Goal, objectives, quantifiable targets, and performance measures identified (Section 2.0 and Section 4.0)

Relevant content (i.e., goal, objectives, performance indicators, targets) modified (see Section 3.0)

Based on refinements to NGTL’s approach since 2015

Continuous Improvement (Section 6.0)

Continual improvement content updated and expanded (see Section 8.0)

Based on refinements to NGTL’s approach since 2015, and to reflect new information since 2015

Appendix A (photos of potential restoration measures)

Now Appendix E, photos updated Based on refinements to NGTL’s approach since 2015

Appendix B (treatment matrix) and Appendix C (habitat restoration initiatives)

Content integrated into Section 5.3, Appendix D (habitat restoration toolkit), and Appendix F (typical drawings); updated content on restoration initiatives provided in Section 8.0

As committed to in Revised Preliminary CHRP, and to reflect new information available since 2015

Appendix D (project contact list) and Appendix E (caribou observation form)

Not included Not required for Final CHRP

Note *: The Preliminary Offset Measures Plan was filed with the CER on April 30, 2019 and approved on July 8, 2019.




3.0 GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

NGTL has reviewed the goal, objectives, and targets from previous filings and has revised or updated them to reflect CER language related to management systems and feedback received from Aboriginal groups. Updates include new program objectives and associated performance indicators. Additional quantitative targets were developed where possible to allow for improved program tracking and continual improvement.

This section identifies NGTL’s goal, objectives, and performance indicators for the measures discussed throughout this Final CHRP. These elements have been refined with experience gained from past projects and will be used to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of NGTL’s caribou habitat restoration measures for the Project.

The goal, objectives, and performance indicators of this Final CHRP are intended to guide NGTL in the selection and assessment of caribou habitat restoration measures and reflect an evolution from earlier plans driven by a commitment to continual improvement. Each performance indicator will be measured by quantifiable targets as described in Section 3.2.

3.1 Goal

NGTL’s goal is to contribute to the conservation and recovery of woodland caribou in Canada, in particular the Graham Caribou Range, by implementing caribou habitat restoration and offset measures that avoid, minimize, restore, and offset residual project effects in a manner that aligns with provincial and federal policies and incorporates feedback from Aboriginal engagement.

3.2 Objectives, Performance Indicators, and Targets

After implementation of the habitat restoration measures, NGTL will undertake monitoring to determine whether the goal, objectives, and performance indicators for this Final CHRP have been achieved. The success of the habitat restoration measures will be quantified by the performance indicators and targets outlined in Table 3-1. The primary measures in these tables are taken from NGTL’s habitat restoration decision framework (see Section 3.0 in the Revised Preliminary CHRP [Appendix A]); the measures may also have a secondary function. The targets are based on NGTL’s experience with restoration measures and will be presented in further detail in the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program (see Section 6.1).



Table 3-1: Performance Indicators and Targets to Achieve Final CHRP Objectives

Objectives Performance Indicator Primary Measures Targets (O1) Restore and offset residual project effects by implementing ecologically relevant caribou habitat restoration measures

(P1) Restore the project footprint to the extent feasible to reduce residual project effects on caribou habitat.

Development and implementation of a NGTL caribou range vegetation management plan/protocol to achieve protection of habitat restoration efforts

Restore 100% of the Project footprint (hectares) excluding the operational right-of-way (ROW) and existing disturbances

(P2) Offset residual project effects by implementing caribou habitat restoration outside of the project footprint

Restore 100% of the residual project effect through offsets (hectares)

(O2) Reduce human access within habitat restoration areas by installing access control measures

(P3) Human access is reduced in restored on-ROW caribou habitat compared to preconstruction where access control has been installed across the entire ROW

• Implement access management

• Woody debris rollback

• Mounding • Vegetation

screens

To not exceed a Low level of human access on restored project footprint compared to preconstruction (as measured by remote cameras)

(P4) Human access is prevented in restored offset areas where access control is installed across the entire linear disturbance.

To not exceed a Low level of human access in restored offset areas within five years following installation of access control

(O3) Commit to continual improvement by implementing an adaptive management framework.

(P5) Systematically review the effectiveness of habitat restoration measures and results of monitoring and apply learnings for continual program improvement

• Monitoring • Remedial

measures • Reporting

Complete a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of project-specific habitat restoration measures using Year 5 monitoring results

(P6) Systematically review the most recent caribou literature, research, and regulatory legislation/guidance and apply to project restoration and offsets.

TC Energy Subject Matter Expert roles and responsibilities.

Review new or updated literature, research and legislation prior to each regulatory filing or as it becomes available

(P7) Systematically engage and collaborate with Aboriginal groups and incorporate Aboriginal feedback and recovery objectives into caribou restoration and offsets

Create and follow engagement strategy

Complete Aboriginal engagement in advance of each regulatory filing and incorporate feedback




Table 3-1: Performance Indicators and Targets to Achieve Final CHRP Objectives

Objectives Performance Indicator Primary Measures Targets (O4) Restore self-sustaining and resilient vegetation communities by using measures such that communities are on a trajectory towards natural succession

(P8) The establishment and survival of planted and naturally ingressed seedlings in restoration and offset areas are consistent with planting guidelines.

• Survey areas to be restored and develop a planting plan

• Implement habitat restoration

• Seedling planting • Shrub staking or

planting • Implement

Monitoring Program

Upland/Transitional Forest Habitat: • Achieve >80% survival rate for

planted seedlings within 10 years following implementation of restoration measures

Treed Wetland/Lowland Habitat: • Achieve >50% survival rate for

planted seedlings within 10 years following implementation of restoration measures

Shrub/Graminoid Wetland Habitat: • Achieve >50% cover of native

vegetation species in the project footprint within 10 years following implementation of restoration measures

No restricted weeds according to applicable legislation.

(P9) Positive growth trend of planted and naturally ingressed seedlings.

Upland/Transitional Forest Habitat: • Achieve positive growth trends

across >80% of restoration locations within 10 years following implementation of restoration measures

Treed Wetland/Lowland Habitat: • Achieve positive growth trends

across >50% of restoration locations within 10 years following implementation of restoration measures

As outlined in Table 3-1, the targets for objective O2 include measurable parameters to define effectiveness of access management. Access management may be implemented to deter human access but also as a habitat restoration technique. NGTL considers a target of no increase (0%) in access after construction to be unrealistic. Recognizing this, but needing to establish an acceptable increase in access, human access is targeted to not exceed ‘Low’ levels. If it is found that human access exceeds a ‘Low’ level in areas where habitat restoration measures have been applied, adaptive management will be used to evaluate why the measures are not meeting the intended target and whether remedial measures could address the concern.

The habitat restoration measures are considered successful when monitoring results show that the performance indicators have met or are on trajectory to meeting the targets and, thereby, the relevant objective and program goal. No additional measures or monitoring will be considered necessary at that point. If monitoring results indicate



that performance indicators have not been met, or are not on trajectory to be met, the reasons for not achieving the targets will be evaluated and the appropriate remedial actions will be taken (e.g., supplemental restoration, additional offsets) and monitoring will continue until the targets are met.5

As outlined in Table 3-1, the targets for performance indicator P8 include measurable parameters that reflect the habitat type affected, and a reasonable timeline to achieve restoration success.

5 In some instances, such as for natural fire events, monitoring may not be required if the fire ‘restarts’

restoration by releasing seed stores. The need for ongoing monitoring following a natural disturbance will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.




4.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

NGTL is committed to ongoing consultation with regulatory agencies and third-party stakeholders, as well as engagement with Aboriginal groups, on the development and implementation of caribou habitat restoration measures. The following sections summarize the outcomes of consultation and engagement as they pertain to this Final CHRP.

4.1 Regulatory Consultation

NGTL has continued to build upon its history of consultation with federal and provincial agencies from project to project. NGTL is committed to continuing consultation specific to this Final CHRP through the Project’s planning and implementation stages.

NGTL prioritizes restoration and offsets on existing NGTL rights-of-way (ROW) within the caribou range affected by a project upon the direction of provincial resource manager. The benefit with this approach is that the ROW is under the operational control of NGTL and, therefore, access management, habitat restoration, and other activities such as the implementation of adaptive management measures, if required, would be protected and long term. In the case of this Project, however, NGTL does not have assets within the Graham Caribou Range and has identified alternative candidate offset locations.

The following is a summary of NGTL’s engagement activities with regulatory agencies, regarding this Project’s Final CHRP:

British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (MFLNRORD)

• March 20, 2020 – NGTL sent an email to MFLNRORD to provide a project update and initiate a conversation regarding on-ROW caribou habitat restoration prescriptions and potential offset locations. NGTL indicated that because no NGTL assets are available to restore as an offset within the Graham Caribou Range, alternative candidate offset locations have been identified for discussion. The Preliminary Offset Measures Plan was provided for reference as well as the proposed on-ROW restoration prescription spatial files.

• April 2, 2020 – NGTL attended a virtual meeting with MFLNRORD to discuss the updated schedule for on-ROW habitat restoration and offsets implementation, potential offset locations within the Graham Caribou Range (or other caribou ranges), and to solicit feedback on recommended priority areas for offsets.

• April 3, 2020 – MFLNRORD provided NGTL with Graham Caribou Range restoration mapping spatial files and a copy of the Preliminary Tactical



Restoration Plan for the South Peace Northern Caribou Ranges (Golder 2018) for consideration during planning.

• February 1, 2021 – NGTL sent an email to MFLNRORD to provide the planned on-ROW caribou habitat restoration prescription maps and candidate offset location maps for their review.

• February 2, 2021 – NGTL attended a virtual meeting with MFLNRORD to review and discuss the planned on-ROW restoration planting prescriptions and six potential offset locations. The candidate offset areas were discussed in detail and the advantages of each location identified. MFLNRORD committed to review the information in greater detail and to follow-up with recommendations and/or concerns.

• February 23, 2021 – NGTL sent an email to MFLNRORD inquiring about feedback on either the planned on-ROW restoration prescriptions or candidate offset locations.

• March 5, 2021 – NGTL received an email from MFLNRORD and the BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (MECCS) indicating there were no concerns with NGTL’s proposed on-ROW planting prescriptions. The six proposed offset locations were ranked in groups by priority based on MFLNRORD’s objectives for caribou recovery in the Graham Caribou Range.

BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO)

• February 22, 2021 – NGTL received an email from EAO requesting the filing deadlines for the Final CHRP and Final Offset Measures Plan, and a suggestion to include a summary of regulator and Aboriginal group concerns regarding NGTL’s proposed plans and demonstrated efforts to resolve each issue. February 23, 2021 – NGTL sent an email to EAO confirming the CER filing deadlines for the Final CHRP and Final Offset Measures Plan as well as a commitment to include of a summary of issues identified on behalf of regulators or Aboriginal groups contacted.

BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (MECCS)

• February 26, 2021 – NGTL sent an email to MECCS to provide a project update and initiate a conversation regarding on-ROW caribou habitat restoration prescriptions and potential offset locations. NGTL indicated that because there are no NGTL assets to restore within the Graham Caribou Range, alternative candidate offset locations have been identified for discussion. NGTL’s planned on-ROW caribou habitat restoration prescription maps and candidate offset location maps were provided for review and feedback.

• March 3, 2021 – NGTL received an email from MECCS confirming that MFLNRORD will be coordinating the review of the Project’s proposed




restoration and offset locations and that the MECCS’s comments will be incorporated into MFLNRORD’s feedback.

BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC)

• February 26, 2021 – NGTL sent an email to OGC to provide a project update and initiate a conversation regarding on-ROW caribou habitat restoration prescriptions and potential offset locations. NGTL indicated that because there are no NGTL assets to restore within the Graham Caribou Range, alternative candidate offset locations have been identified for discussion. NGTL’s planned on-ROW caribou habitat restoration prescription maps and candidate offset location maps were provided for review and feedback.

• March 3, 2021 – NGTL attended a virtual meeting with OGC to review and discuss the planned on-ROW restoration planting prescriptions and six potential offset locations. The candidate offset areas were discussed in detail and the advantages of each location identified. The OGC requested a copy of the Revised Preliminary CHRP (provided via email on March 4, 2021) and committed to review the information in greater detail and to follow-up with recommendations and/or concerns by March 10, 2021.

• March 3, 2021 – The OGC sent an email to NGTL requesting clarification on the term ‘priority watershed’ used in NGTL’s offset locations analysis to determine candidate areas for restoration. NGTL responded via email on March 4 that priority watersheds were identified based on watershed units within restoration polygons (as identified in Golder 2018) and that priority watersheds contain linear features available for restoration and one or more types of access (e.g., roads, recreational trails, cutlines, pipeline ROWs).

• March 10, 2021 – No feedback or concerns were submitted to NGTL by OGC.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)

• March 19, 2021 – NGTL sent an email to ECCC to provide a project update and initiate a conversation regarding on-ROW caribou habitat restoration prescriptions and potential offset locations. NGTL indicated that because there are no NGTL assets to restore within the Graham Caribou Range, alternative candidate offset locations have been identified for discussion. NGTL’s planned on-ROW caribou habitat restoration prescription maps and candidate offset location maps were provided for review and feedback.

• March 19, 2021 – NGTL received an email from ECCC stating that ECCC may provide comment directly to NGTL or, alternatively, defer feedback to provincial regulators (awaiting response).



4.2 Aboriginal Engagement

The goal of ongoing engagement is to align on-the-ground restoration planning with compatible and existing traditional land use practice; whereby measures are implemented in a manner that avoids or limits disruption of traditional activities in restoration areas. While NGTL engages regularly with Aboriginal groups during project applications, recent feedback has indicated that groups would like to be engaged earlier when caribou habitat is intersected by a component of the project. NGTL is in the process of collaborating with interested Aboriginal groups to develop an engagement strategy. This engagement strategy will describe how Aboriginal inputs, including traditional knowledge, is presented, discussed, and incorporated where possible throughout the planning, restoration, offsetting, and monitoring process. Details of NGTL’s engagement with potentially affected Aboriginal groups are provided in the GH-001-2014 Hearing Record, Section 7.1 of Condition 15: Revised Preliminary CHRP6 and Section 2.2 of Condition 36: Preliminary Offset Measures Plan.7

NGTL has considered and provided a response to those Aboriginal groups who provided feedback regarding NGTL’s proposed mitigation measures to address potential effects of the Project on caribou and caribou habitat. Comments and feedback from Aboriginal groups received to date have informed the Project’s caribou plans and are incorporated in this Final CHRP, where possible. NGTL understands that Aboriginal groups are interested in opportunities to participate in restoration activities. NGTL is committed to meeting with each interested Aboriginal group to develop opportunities for participation in caribou habitat restoration for this Project.

The following is a summary of NGTL’s engagement activities with Aboriginal groups regarding this Project’s caribou planning and implementation activities since the Preliminary Offset Measures Plan was filed in April 2019: • On February 26, 2021, NGTL emailed Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN),

Doig River First Nation (DRFN), Halfway River First Nation (HRFN), McLeod Lake Indian Band (MLIB), Saulteau First Nations (SFN) and West Moberly First Nations (WMFN) to request input on the Project’s CHRP regarding the habitat restoration prescriptions and the offsets and offset locations. NGTL provided the draft restoration prescription map book and potential offset locations maps.

• On February 28, 2021, NGTL received an email from DRFN requesting the shape files for the caribou offset locations. On March 1, 2021, NGTL sent the shapefiles as requested by DRFN.

6 NEB Filing ID: A72289. 7 NEB Filing ID: A99182-1.




• On March 10, 2021, NGTL emailed BRFN, DRFN, HRFN, MLIB, SFN and WMFN to follow-up on NGTL’s February 26, 2021 email requesting input on the Project’s CHRP.

• On March 23, 2021, NGTL received an email from HRFN’s environmental consultant requesting NGTL provide documentation for review. NGTL emailed HRFN’s environmental consultant the same day to provide the caribou habitat restoration prescriptions and offset location maps as previously sent on February 26, 2021.

To date, no responses with specific feedback, input, concerns or requests to meet have been received by NGTL from the Aboriginal groups identified above regarding the habitat restoration prescriptions within the CHRP and potential offset locations. NGTL remains committed to answering questions and meeting with interested Aboriginal groups to discuss the implementation of caribou habitat restoration offset measures, upon request.



5.0 RESIDUAL PROJECT EFFECTS AND CARIBOU HABITAT RESTORATION

This section of the Final CHRP describes and updates effects of the Project on caribou habitat since the Revised Preliminary CHRP was approved in October 2015 and describes the planned measures for on-ROW habitat restoration. This Final CHRP uses the as-built parameters to define the project footprint for the quantification of residual project effects and the development of the habitat restoration plan.

5.1 Project Interaction with Caribou Habitat

The Aitken Creek Section of the Project overlaps with Type 1 matrix range within the Graham Caribou Range8 for 8.18 km between KP 84+700 to KP 92+800 (Table 5-1; Figure 1-1). Within this area, the Project overlaps with private land for 2.02 km. Project effects on private land are not included in this Final CHRP.

Table 5-1: Project Interaction with the Graham Caribou Range

Caribou Range

Provincial and Federal Status

Designation

Current Population

Trend

Project Linear Disturbance within Caribou Range (km)

Total Length

Contiguous Alignment

Non-contiguous Alignment

Private Land

Crown Land

Private Land

Crown Land

Graham Special Concern (BC); Threatened (federal)1

Declining2 8.183 2.02 4.63 0.00 1.52

Note: 1. Provincially blue listed (i.e., special concern [BC CDC 2021]); federally designated as Threatened under

Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2021). 2. ECCC 2018; Pelletier and Seip 2019. 3. Total Length may not equal sum of values because of rounding.

On Crown land, the Project is contiguous9 with an existing ROW for 4.63 km, and non-contiguous (i.e., new cut) for 1.52 km (Table 5-1). The project footprint on Crown land within the Graham Caribou Range is 26.89 ha. Within the project footprint is an operational ROW; the operational ROW is a 10-m wide area over the ditchline that will not be restored and is subject to periodic vegetation management to maintain operational access, except where there is overlap with existing, permanent disturbance (e.g., road). Table 5-2 presents the duration, type, and area of existing direct disturbance overlapping the project footprint and operational ROW on Crown land within caribou range.

8 The Graham Caribou Range has the same boundary as the Graham Local Population Unit, as defined in the

federal Southern Mountain Caribou Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2014) 9 Meaning “sharing a common border”; that is, a project is adjacent to, and shares space with, existing

disturbance, typically an existing pipeline right-of-way.




Table 5-2: Summary of Existing Direct Disturbance Overlapping the Project Footprint and Operational ROW on Crown Land within the Graham Caribou Range

Disturbance Duration Disturbance Type Area (ha) within Project

Footprint Area (ha) within

Operational ROW Permanent/Long term Tertiary road 0.17 0.04

Pipeline right-of-way 3.14 0.31 Other industrial/cleared 0.47 0.11

Subtotal 3.78 0.46 Temporary Seismic line 0.71 0.15

Trail/cutline 0.13 0.04 Cutblock 3.12 0.77

Subtotal 3.96 0.96 TOTAL 7.74 1.42

5.2 Quantification of Project Effects and Residual Project Effects

Quantification of residual project effects is required to estimate an offset value. Project effects are based on the spatial area of direct and indirect disturbance after mitigation and before implementation of habitat restoration measures. The approach used to calculate residual project effects (i.e., disturbed versus not disturbed habitat in respect of the federal 65% undisturbed habitat threshold) is consistent with the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain Population in Canada (hereafter ‘the federal Southern Mountain Caribou Recovery Strategy', Environment Canada 2014).

To calculate residual project effects, disturbance types were classed as either temporary or permanent as a means for quantifying disturbance longevity and assumed effects on caribou habitat. Temporary disturbances are those that can reasonably recover in the short term (i.e., 40 years or less [see Section 6.6.2 of the Preliminary Offset Measures Plan for relevance to caribou habitat10]), and permanent disturbances are those that are not likely to recover within 40 years. Temporary disturbances include forest cut blocks, low-impact seismic lines, temporary workspaces, and burned areas, and permanent disturbances include transmission lines, roads, railways, maintained portions of pipeline ROWs, above-ground facilities, conventional seismic lines, recreational areas and trails, well sites, quarries, agriculture/cropland, buildings, airports, and settlements. For the Project, within caribou range, the operational ROW is considered permanent, and the remaining workspace that is planned for restoration is considered temporary.

Effects associated with temporary and permanent disturbances, both existing and project-related, are partitioned into direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are based

10 NEB Filing ID: A99182-1.

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/1060220/2759738/3775305/A99182-1_North_Montney_Preliminary_Caribou_Habitat_OMP_-_A6U1A7.pdf?nodeid=3775165&vernum=-2



on the areal representation of disturbance footprints, and indirect effects are based on the areal representation of a 500-m buffer around those footprints, excluding existing permanent effects such as roads. Burned areas that are 40 years old or less are included as a temporary disturbance feature, but these areas are not buffered by 500 m, consistent with methods used in the federal Southern Mountain Caribou Recovery Strategy. Existing and project disturbances are organized hierarchically by effect duration (i.e., permanent or temporary) and effect type (i.e., direct or indirect), as illustrated in the ‘standard disturbance hierarchy’ (Figure 5-1).

The standard disturbance hierarchy process allows an accurate accounting of residual project effects on caribou habitat when the project footprint and its 500-m buffer area are overlaid on existing disturbance footprints and their associated buffer areas. An example illustration of the steps taken to quantify residual direct and indirect project effects is provided in Figure 5-2.

The extent of existing direct and indirect disturbance and residual project disturbance is illustrated in Appendix C. The specifics of the development of the existing disturbance layer are provided in the Preliminary Offset Measures Plan.11

5.3 Habitat Restoration Plan

It is understood that caribou are at increased risk of predation as secondary prey due to increased human linear access into caribou habitat. Primary prey such as moose and deer have expanded their ranges deeper into caribou habitat due to an increase in human linear disturbance and the increased biomass of browse species typical of early seral plant communities (e.g., Latham et al. 2011; DeCesare et al. 2012). Predators, such as wolves, will hunt moose and deer using human linear disturbances, especially when they are compacted by off-road vehicles and are relatively easy to travel on. Caribou are killed opportunistically as predators travel along the linear disturbances and have an increased likelihood of encountering caribou. Moose and deer both reproduce at a higher rate than caribou and in turn attract more predators, exposing caribou to additional predation risk. Additional information on this process is provided in the literature review that was completed for the Revised Preliminary CHRP.

11 NEB Filing ID: A99182-1.


Service Layer Credits:

Service Layer Credits:" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

Û Û Û Û Û Û

Û Û Û Û Û Û

Û Û Û Û Û Û

Û Û Û Û Û Û

Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û



" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "



Existing, Permanent, Direct

Project, Permanent, Direct

Existing, Permanent, Indirect

Project, Permanent, Indirect

Existing, Temporary, Direct

Existing, Temporary, Direct (fire)

Project, Temporary, Direct

Existing, Temporary, Indirect

Project, Temporary, Indirect

Combined Existing and Project Disturbances

Standard Disturbance Layer Hierarchy


" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

Û Û Û Û Û Û

Û Û Û Û Û Û

Û Û Û Û Û Û

Û Û Û Û Û Û




" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " " " " " " " " " " " "

Figure 5-1 Standard Disturbance Hierarchy Process Used to Quantify Project Effects

1. Create existing disturbance layerand classify as permanent and temporary.

2. Apply 500-m buffer to temporary and permanentexisting disturbances.

4. Determine area of project footprint to be restored,and direct and indirect project effects.

ProjectFootprint

3. Add project footprint and determine direct andindirect permanent and temporary project effects.

Permanent Direct

Permanent Indirect

Temporary Direct

Temporary Indirect

Existing

Permanent Direct

Permanent Indirect

Temporary Direct

Temporary Indirect

ProjectPermanent Direct

Permanent Indirect

Temporary Direct

Temporary Indirect

Ground DisturbancePlanned Restored Footprint

Direct Project Effect

Indirect Project Effect

Figure 5-2 Stepwise Approach for Quantifying Project Effects

Permanent Direct

Temporary Direct




As a result, NGTL focuses habitat restoration efforts on limiting the ability of predators to move along ROWs by facilitating quick revegetation and implementing access control measures to deter human activity. Planting conifer seedlings is expected to accelerate habitat restoration to a forested state. In addition, NGTL uses minimal surface disturbance construction techniques (i.e., mowing/mulching in the ROW during frozen conditions to reduce disturbance of surface soils, except where grading is necessary) to allow for rapid re-establishment of vegetation. Quick revegetation and access control such as rollback or mounding (combine with conifer planting), will reduce human activity and subsequent predator access.

Habitat restoration measures will be implemented in 2021 (see Section 7.0) on the project footprint to reduce residual effects of the Project on caribou and caribou habitat. However, residual effects after the implementation of habitat restoration measures will remain for two reasons:

1. There will be an associated temporal delay and delivery risk associated with the implementation of on-ROW habitat restoration measures, and;

2. Some areas of the Project footprint will not be restored (i.e., the operational ROW).12

Site-specific habitat restoration measures have been selected for the Project under the guidance of NGTL’s habitat restoration decision framework (see Section 3.0 in the Revised Preliminary CHRP [Appendix A]). The decision framework guides the selection of habitat restoration measures based on the habitat restoration unit, expected effectiveness, site-specific conditions, availability of suitable materials, and NGTL’s habitat restoration experience from other projects. Appendix D provides a ‘toolkit’ of potential habitat restoration measures that includes a summary of the expected effectiveness of each measure. Appendix E provides photographs of examples of potential habitat restoration measures. Appendix F provides construction schematics (i.e., typical drawings) of examples of potential engineered habitat restoration measures.

NGTL understands that Aboriginal groups are interested in opportunities to participate in restoration activities. NGTL is committed to meeting with interested Aboriginal groups to develop opportunities for participation in caribou habitat restoration for this Project.

The habitat restoration plan for the Project is illustrated in Appendix G and summarized in Table 5-3.

12 As defined in Section 5.1, the operational ROW is a 10-m wide area over the ditchline that is subject to

periodic vegetation management to maintain operational access, except where there is overlap with existing, permanent disturbance (e.g., a road).



Table 5-3: Summary of Habitat Restoration Measures Planned for the Project

Habitat Restoration Measure* Purpose Prescription

Area (ha)

Relevant Appendix G Map Sheets

Plant white spruce seedlings

Primary: • Habitat restoration Secondary: • Access management • Reduce line of sight

1,600–2,400 seedlings per ha planting density depending on site conditions

12.55 1,2

Plant black spruce seedlings

Primary: • Habitat restoration Secondary: • Access management • Reduce line of sight


5.18 1,2

Mounding, plant black spruce seedlings

Primary: • Habitat restoration

(create microsites) Secondary: • Access management • Reduce line of sight


1.58 1,2

Rollback, plant white spruce seedlings

Primary: • Habitat restoration

(create microsites) Secondary: • Access management • Reduce line of sight


0.67 1

Note *: Additional information on the Project’s planned habitat restoration measures can be found in appendices D, E, and F

The planned habitat restoration is entirely within the moist warm Boreal Black and White Spruce subzone; in brief, due to a combination of natural fire, extensive land clearing, and prescribed fire, this subzone is characterized by trembling aspen, with white spruce on moister sites with limited disturbance history, black spruce on organic soils, and lodgepole pine on drier, poorer sites (DeLong et al. 2011). The aerial photos in Appendix H show the post-construction project footprint and the adjacent landcover as they were on June 18, 2020.

Tree seedling planting (black spruce [6.76 ha], white spruce [13.22 ha]) is the primary habitat restoration measure planned for on-ROW habitat restoration (Table 5-3). Coniferous seedling planting is considered a long-term habitat restoration measure, and an effective long-term access management and line-of-sight measure (it may take 10 or more years to achieve effectiveness, depending on site conditions). Species selection is determined based on the biophysical characteristics of the site, adjacent forest stand composition, and restoration targets. Black spruce will be planted in




lowland habitat types and white spruce will be planted in transitional/upland habitat types.

In wetter lowland areas, mounding will be used to improve black spruce seedling survival (Table 5-3). Mounding creates better-drained microsites for the planted seedlings. The mounds created for microsite improvement will be approximately 0.6 m deep with the excavated material placed adjacent to the hole (see Appendix F). Two to three seedlings will be planted per mound, depending on the form and orientation of the mound. For previous NGTL caribou habitat restoration projects on pipeline ROWs, the achievable range in mound density was 700 to 1,400 mounds/ha. Mound density is dependent on soil characteristics, extent of frost, amount of workspace, and type of equipment used.

During operation of the pipeline, NGTL periodically manages vegetation over the ditchline of the ROW, in accordance with TC Energy operational procedures for pipeline integrity monitoring under Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662-19 (CSA 2019), to allow for inspection and operational access as needed. This is considered the Project’s operational ROW and is a direct, permanent disturbance (i.e., unrestored). The operational ROW will not be seeded, except where erosion control is needed, and will be left to naturally regenerate.

Areas of existing permanent disturbance that need to be maintained during project operation (e.g., intersections with third-party dispositions such as roads) are not identified for habitat restoration.

Access management is not planned as a primary purpose for the contiguous section of the project footprint because it would be ineffective when not applied across the existing, permanent linear feature as well (see Section 8.7). For the new cut section, the project footprint is 200 m or less from two existing, parallel, and permanent linear features (i.e., road and pipeline), and is crossed by two other permanent linear features (i.e., roads). The resulting new cut segments are therefore relatively short (< 500 m each) and within the disturbance buffers of existing permanent access. Subsequently, access management was not planned for the new cut section as it is not expected to provide functional value in the context of existing disturbance. Rollback was applied to an approximately 225 m (0.67 ha) section of the ROW in 2020 to create microsites for revegetation; white spruce will be planted in this rollback section in 2021 (Table 5-3). Portions of the operational ROW may be covered in rollback (not planted); rollback logs will be moved for access, as needed.

The Project is located in a highly disturbed landscape (see Appendix C and Table 5-2); therefore, the quality of the on-ROW habitat restoration for caribou is predicted to be compromised over the long term, primarily due to the presence of permanent direct and indirect disturbances unrelated to the Project (i.e., roads, non-NGTL pipeline ROWs, industrial facilities).



No challenges were associated with developing the habitat restoration plan for the Project.

Using the as-built project footprint, Table 5-4 summarizes the preliminary residual direct and indirect project effects in the context of existing disturbance (determined as described in Section 5.2). The values in Table 5-4 are based on assumptions; the actual values may differ based on the implemented habitat restoration measures. Final residual direct and indirect project effects will be based on the completed planting program and will be reported on in the Final Offset Measures Plan, pursuant to Condition 36 of GC-125. The metrics are defined as: • Planned Restored Footprint: area of the project footprint that is planned for

restoration (i.e., temporary workspace and portions of the unmaintained ROW). • Existing Permanent Disturbance: area of the project footprint that overlaps

existing disturbance and cannot be restored following project construction (e.g., an existing foreign disposition).

• Residual Direct Project Effect: unrestored area of the project footprint (e.g., operational ROW).

• Residual Indirect Project Effect: area represented by a 500-m permanent disturbance buffer applied to the unrestored project footprint (i.e., operational ROW), excluding areas of existing direct or indirect permanent anthropogenic disturbance.

• Residual Project Effects: the sum of the area of Residual Direct Project Effect and Residual Indirect Project Effect.

Table 5-4: Residual Project Effects on Caribou Habitat on Crown Land

Spatial Boundary

Area (ha)

Planned Restored Footprint

Existing Permanent

Disturbance

Residual Direct

Project Effect

Residual Indirect Project Effect

Residual Project Effects

Project Footprint (26.89 ha) 19.98 1.05 5.86* n/a 5.86

Within 500 m of operational ROW n/a n/a n/a 0.0 0.0

Total 5.86 Note: n/a = applicable * This is the area of the operational ROW that does not overlap with existing permanent disturbance




6.0 FUTURE FILINGS ON CARIBOU HABITAT RESTORATION

The following sections identify NGTL’s future filings to the CER on caribou habitat restoration for the Project based on the Conditions in GC-125.

6.1 Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program

Per Condition 37 of GC-125 NGTL will file the following:13

37. Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program

NGTL shall file with the Board for approval, on or before 1 February after the first complete growing season following the commencement of operation for each of the Aitken Creek and Kahta Sections of the Section 52 Facilities, a Program for monitoring and verifying the effectiveness of the caribou habitat restoration and offset measures implemented as part of the CHRP and Offset Measures Plan. This Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program shall be for a minimum of 10 years and include, but not be limited to:

a) the scientific methodology or protocol for short-term and long-term monitoring of the restoration and offset measures, and the effectiveness of the measures;

b) frequency, timing, locations and the rationale for each monitoring;

c) protocols for how restoration and offset measures will be adapted, as required, based on the monitoring results from the implementation of either section of the Section 52 Facilities or other NGTL CHRPs and Offset Measures Plans; and

d) a schedule for filing reports of monitoring results and the adaptive management responses, to the Board, Environment Canada and provincial authorities to be contained in the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program as well as at the beginning of each report filed.

As noted in Section 1.1, the Kahta Section was shortened in 2018 to the extent that it no longer overlapped with caribou range; consequently, only one Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program is required (for the Aitken Creek Section).

13 In complying with this condition NGTL notes its filings to the CER of November 18, 2020 (CER Filing

ID:C09650-1) and February 10, 2021 (CER Filing ID: C11491).



6.2 Caribou Monitoring Reports

Per Condition 38 of GC-125 NGTL will file the following:

38. Caribou Monitoring Reports

NGTL shall file with the Board, based on the schedule referred to in the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program, a report(s) outlining the results of the monitoring program.




7.0 SCHEDULE

Table 7-1 presents a schedule for on-ROW habitat restoration implementation and related filings. NGTL will consider the seasonal sensitivity of caribou when implementing habitat restoration measures for the Project.

Table 7-1: Schedule for Habitat Restoration Implementation within Caribou Range and Related Filings

Project Milestones Timeline

Project construction August 2018 to January 2020

In-service date (Aitken Section) January 31, 2020

Completion of final cleanup Second quarter of 2021

Filing of Revised Preliminary CHRP to the NEB (Condition 15)

August 31, 2015

Filing of Final CHRP to the CER (Condition 15) April 1, 2021

Implementation of on-ROW habitat restoration measures

Planting summer/fall 2021 after the end of the caribou restricted activity period (i.e., after July 15, 2021)

Filing of Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program (Condition 37) to the CER

On or before February 1, 2022

Filing of Caribou Monitoring Reports (Condition 38) to the CER

Detailed schedule will be defined in the Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program



8.0 CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT

Through the requirements of TC Energy’s Environment Program, NGTL is committed to the process of continual improvement. Hazards and risks are proactively and systematically managed throughout the lifecycle of the assets. Continual improvement is achieved through: • adaptive management practices in the field • results from habitat monitoring programs • research from industry associations • available literature • engagement with applicable regulators, resource managers, and Aboriginal groups • integrating information from Aboriginal groups and their ecological perspectives • finalization of provincial range plans and/or habitat restoration initiatives • lessons learned from other NGTL projects

8.1 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is the reiterative process of planning, executing, checking results, and acting on the outcome. This may include developing an adaptation of the first plan depending on those outcomes. In this case, adaptive management is the systematic process of monitoring and assessing outcomes of the program and modifying habitat restoration measures if targets are not being met.

NGTL will implement adaptive management by supplementing restoration measures or taking other remedial action, where warranted, to achieve the performance indicators and ultimately the goal of the program using quantifiable targets.

Adaptive management is intended to: • evaluate restoration measures, performance, and effectiveness • identify the cause of underperforming measures (i.e., microsite conditions that are

either not conducive or suitable for establishment of target vegetation) • address underperforming measures requiring supplemental or remedial action

An adaptive management framework will be used to respond to monitoring results as they pertain to achieving monitoring targets and reporting of monitoring results will be completed for compliance and transparency. This framework is in development and will be provided with the Year 5 Monitoring Report for Northwest Mainline Expansion, Leismer to Kettle Crossover and Chinchaga Lateral Loop No. 3, to be filed in Q1 2022.




8.2 Monitoring

NGTL will develop a monitoring program for the Project consistent with the requirements of Condition 37 of GC-125 (see Section 6.1). NGTL will include the restoration and offset areas for the Project in NGTL’s existing monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented habitat restoration and offset measures.

The monitoring program will be designed to identify and manage issues requiring supplemental or remedial action to achieve habitat restoration and offsetting objectives. NGTL recognizes the importance of adaptive management and commits to regularly evaluating the program goal, objectives, performance indicators, and targets and updating each as required. Monitoring results will inform whether program targets have been met and allow for the trending of results to identify where improvements are necessary.

The monitoring program will include the methods of data collection in both on-ROW restoration and offset areas as well as the duration and frequency of the data collection.

In the absence of provincial guidance to date, NGTL has developed its own protocols for ground-based, aerial, and camera monitoring.

To date, NGTL has used resource specialists to lead and execute monitoring programs and to statistically evaluate the data for the required monitoring reports. Aboriginal groups have expressed an interest in having a more active role in monitoring caribou habitat restoration and offset measures. Aboriginal groups have previously participated in construction monitoring programs and NGTL is committed to discussing future opportunities for participation from interested Aboriginal groups in restoration monitoring related to the Project.

NGTL has heard Aboriginal groups raise concerns about the effectiveness of habitat restoration measures. NGTL evaluates the effectiveness of access controls, for example, and after one year, if necessary, will implement changes if they are not effective. A Year 5 monitoring report for the Northwest Mainline Expansion, Leismer to Kettle Crossover and Chinchaga Lateral Loop No 3. Projects will be filed Q1 2022. It will include monitoring data and a substantive review of the mitigation measures based on statistical analyses.

8.3 Research Initiatives

Caribou research is an active, evolving field and it is anticipated that methods to restore habitat will continue to be tested and refined. NGTL will continue to incorporate new information on caribou habitat mitigation, restoration planning, and implementation. If new research identifies success with alternate methods of caribou habitat restoration, NGTL will determine if the methods are applicable for use on its



pipeline ROWs. Where appropriate, applicable, and supported by regulators, new habitat restoration measures will be incorporated into NGTL’s habitat restoration and offset measures toolkit and decision frameworks.

Similarly, methods that prove to be ineffective will be removed from NGTL’s decision frameworks and toolkit. Examples of these refinements include changes made to access control and line-of-sight measures on contiguous foreign dispositions and discontinuation of the use of earth and wood berms (see Section 8.7).

In addition to the continual evaluation and improvement of habitat restoration and offsetting tools over time, other aspects of restoration and offsetting are also routinely evaluated. For example, results from ongoing caribou habitat monitoring activities, and new information from peer-reviewed literature, as it relates to the magnitude of the delivery and temporal risk multipliers, may cause those multipliers to be adjusted to reflect expected outcomes more accurately. In each habitat restoration and offset measures plan, the restoration activities and multipliers are updated to be consistent with other recently filed caribou habitat restoration and offset measures plans (e.g., Stantec 2018a,b; NGTL 2019, 2020a,b).

A wide range of initiatives have generated important lessons learned related to oil and gas development in caribou range, including which plant species to use, when and where to replant, development of effective techniques to promote natural revegetation, and a better understanding of methods to manage access. Initiatives focused on revegetation and access management, as well as limiting growth and establishment of plant species favourable to primary prey, are particularly relevant (e.g., CRRP 2007a,b; Golder 2010; Osko and Glasgow 2010). Other key initiatives are tree planting projects, coarse woody debris management best practices, habitat enhancement programs, and habitat restoration trials in caribou range (CRRP 2007a, b; Enbridge 2010; Golder 2010, 2011; COSIA 2019). Large-scale habitat restoration projects near Grande Prairie, Cold Lake, and Fort McMurray, Alberta, as well as NGTL’s projects in caribou habitat have incorporated learnings from these initiatives.

8.4 Provincial Authority Guidance

NGTL consults with the Province of British Columbia on a project-specific basis to help validate restoration planting prescriptions and the locations of offset measures. NGTL typically implements offsets on existing, unrestored ROWs in caribou range. NGTL is committed to continuing discussions with MFLNRORD as the resource managers, with the goal of maintaining a coordinated approach to offsetting in caribou ranges to ensure the most benefit to caribou. The Province of British Columbia has indicated that the restoration of legacy linear features in caribou range is a priority.




British Columbia's regulatory approach to caribou management is expressed in three Implementation Plans (i.e., BC MOE 2011 [Boreal Caribou]; BC MOE 2013a [South Peace Northern Caribou]; BC MAL 2007 [Mountain Caribou]); two Science Reviews (i.e., BC MOE 2010; BC MFLNRORD and BC MECCS 2018); and the BC Caribou Recovery Program (Government of British Columbia 2021a).

The Province has designated ungulate winter ranges (UWRs) and wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) for caribou. UWRs and WHAs are areas that contain habitat necessary to meet specific life requisites of a species and are established under the Forest and Range Practices Act (Government of British Columbia 2021b).

The Canada-British Columbia Southern Mountain Caribou Protection Study (ECCC and the Government of British Columbia 2017) includes a comprehensive review of the various legislative instruments applicable to conservation of caribou in BC. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Species at Risk Act, the Canada-British Columbia Conservation Agreement was signed on February 21, 2020 to create a framework for cooperation and establish a path forward for urgent caribou population recovery (Government of Canada and Government of British Columbia 2020). Concurrent with the Canada-British Columbia Conservation Agreement, and specific to the Central Group of Southern Mountain Caribou, the Inter-governmental Partnership Agreement for the Conservation of the Central Group was developed among the federal and provincial governments and the Saulteau First Nations and West Moberly First Nations (Government of Canada, Government of British Columbia, Saulteau First Nations, and West Moberly First Nations 2020; hereafter the ‘Partnership Agreement’).

The categorization of caribou ranges in BC is complex. The geographic delineation system used by the Government of British Columbia (2020a) is consistent with the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada designatable unit system (COSEWIC 2011), and the status assessments of Boreal Caribou (COSEWIC 2014a) and the Northern Mountain, Central Mountain and Southern Mountain populations (COSEWIC 2014b) that were used in subsequent federal recovery strategies (Environment Canada 2014; ECCC 2020). Management regimes in BC are different for Boreal Caribou, Northern Mountain Caribou and Southern Mountain Caribou ecological areas (Government of British Columbia 2021c; 2021d). Within the Southern Mountain Caribou ecological area there are three further subgroupings, the Northern Group, the Central Group, and the Southern Group; these subgroupings have different management regimes.

The Graham Caribou Range is in the Northern Group of Southern Mountain Caribou, adjacent to the Central Group. The Graham Caribou Range is included in provincial South Peace Northern Caribou planning documents, which also include caribou herds from the Central Group.



The major regulatory initiative that applies specifically to the Graham Caribou Range is the Implementation Plan for the Ongoing Management of South Peace Northern Caribou in British Columbia (BC MOE 2013a), also known as the Peace Northern Caribou Plan (PNCP). The PNCP was developed to meet commitments to manage and recover species at risk identified under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada and the Canada–British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk. The PNCP includes the protection of 80 percent or more of high elevation winter range and provides strategic direction and management actions required to meet conservation goals and objectives for South Peace Northern Caribou (BC MOE 2013a).

Additional direction on caribou management and conservation is provided in the South Peace Northern Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Guidance (BC MOE 2013a) and the Natural Resource Board Direction: Planning and Approval of Development Activities in the South Peace Northern Caribou Area (Natural Resource Board 2013). The provincial guidance (BC MOE 2013b) identifies the need to incorporate the following two principles in Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (CMMPs):

1. Proposed development activities and associated mitigation (including offsetting) can be demonstrated to result in a net neutral or positive effect on the viability of South Peace northern caribou within 10 years of receiving approval.

2. Proponents are responsible for developing CMMPs and resourcing the management actions required to meet principle 1. The Direction also provides proponents the opportunity to be exempt from developing a CMMP, if they can demonstrate the proposed activities meet specific criteria.

The draft Standardized Industry Management Practices (BC MFLNRO 2016) provides guidance on how to mitigate adverse effects on Central Group caribou and their habitat when undertaking resource development activities. As well, the Graham Caribou Range is managed using provincial-level legislative tools such as UWRs, WHAs, and provisions under the Oil and Gas Activities Act and Environmental Protection and Management Regulation (Government of British Columbia 2021b).

8.5 Aboriginal Engagement

While NGTL engages regularly with communities during project applications, recent feedback has indicated that Aboriginal groups would like to be engaged earlier when caribou habitat is intersected by a component of the project. NGTL is in the process of collaborating with interested Aboriginal groups to develop an engagement strategy. This engagement strategy will describe how Aboriginal inputs, including traditional knowledge is presented, discussed, and incorporated where possible throughout the planning, restoration, offsetting and monitoring process.




8.6 Industry Collaboration

NGTL has worked with other industry members through the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and other multi-stakeholder working groups to engage provincial regulators on caribou recovery in Alberta and British Columbia (BC). NGTL is participating, through the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, on the caribou subregional task forces created under the Agreement for the Conservation and Recovery of the Woodland Caribou in Alberta (Government of Alberta and Government of Canada 2020). These multi-stakeholder task forces are responsible for providing recommendations to government on subregional planning, including caribou recovery and caribou habitat restoration actions.

Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) has four key focus areas: tailings, water, land, and greenhouse gases. Within the COSIA land focus area is a caribou habitat restoration initiative with the goal of improving woodland caribou habitat quality and herd survival through restoration of historic linear disturbances. COSIA has developed the following caribou habitat restoration initiatives: • Determining effectiveness of different restoration techniques such as winter

tree planting, mounding, seeding and placement of coarse woody debris. The winter tree planting trial was set up to determine the effectiveness of planting black spruce seedlings in wetland areas during winter. Results of the tree planting trial indicated 90% survival of the 900 seedlings planted.

• Development of the Landscape Ecological Assessment Planning (LEAP) tool which establishes baseline land use for the southern Lower Athabasca Region of Alberta and can be used to determine the long-term effects of reclamation on reforestation and caribou habitat and guide reclamation efforts.

• The Algar Historic Restoration Project takes an integrated regional approach, with six companies working together to repair fragmented habitat across an area of land outside their actual licence areas. This is a multi year program to replant trees and shrubs along the linear footprint in the Algar Region, covering an area of approximately 570 square kilometers.

• The LiDea Project aims to restore linear disturbances using mounding and tree felling. Rigorous monitoring and measurement programs have been designed for the life of the LiDea Project and include 37,000 ha of active treatment area. During spring and summer, conifer seedlings are planted along older, mounded seismic lines. The LiDea Project is also experimenting with forest stand modification, which involves bending tree stems from the adjacent forest across the seismic line to create physical barriers and reduce sightlines along the linear corridor.



The Regional Industry Caribou Collaboration (RICC) is part of COSIA and is a multi-industry partnership focused on restoring caribou habitat through regional, collaborative, range-based efforts. The objectives of RICC are to coordinate habitat restoration in the short and long term, coordinate future activity, support and lead scientific research, conduct applied trials, and align caribou habitat restoration programs with provincially-led range plans and action plans. Likewise, research conducted by RICC will provide information on the effectiveness of measures implemented to reduce predator and primary prey use of linear features.

Although NGTL is not currently an active member of RICC, NGTL has collaborated with its members on restoration projects. A major RICC research effort is to verify the effectiveness of restoration measures using a multi-scale predator/prey collaring program to address current knowledge gaps in habitat use and function. RICC uses the ABMI group for most of their data collection and publications. NGTL has access to ABMI data and associated publications and incorporates learnings into the literature reviews and the implementation of restoration measures (e.g., Dickie et al. 2017).

NGTL also supported research initiatives on Boreal Caribou in BC through the BC Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society’s Research and Effectiveness Monitoring Board. This research program was multifaceted but included restoration of caribou habitat, research into predator/prey relationships, and research on Boreal Caribou in relation to their habitat (e.g., wildlife responses to habitat restoration within the Parker Range).

8.7 Lessons from NGTL Habitat Restoration

NGTL has completed caribou habitat restoration plans in Alberta for the following projects: Northwest Mainline Loop (Boundary Lake North Section),14 Smoky River Lateral Loop,15 Peace River Mainline Abandonment,16 Leismer to Kettle River Crossover,17 Northwest Mainline Komie North Extension (Chinchaga Lateral Loop No. 3),18 Liege Lateral Loop No. 2 (Thornbury Section),19 Northwest Mainline Expansion,20 2017 NGTL System Expansion,21 and 2018 Meter Stations and Laterals Abandonment Program (Meadow Creek Receipt Meter Station and Lateral).22

14 CER Filing ID: C04467-1. 15 CER Filing ID: C04473-1. 16 NEB Filing IDs: A96593-1 and A97635-1. 17 NEB Filing IDs: A48745 and A56819. 18 NEB Filing IDs: A52951 and A69803. 19 NEB Filing IDs: A71014, A72136, and A87455. 20 NEB Filing IDs: A44778 and A56798. 21 NEB Filing ID: A79253. 22 CER Filing ID: C06714-1.

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/3173681/3413262/3596952/3900178/C04467-1_NGTL_NWML_Loop_%28Boundary_Lake_North_Section%29_-_Caribou_Habitat_Restoration_and_Offset_Measures_Plan_-_A7D0U7.pdf?nodeid=3902105&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/3173681/3394028/3899885/C04473-1_NGTL_Smoky_River_Lateral_Loop_-_Caribou_Habitat_Restoration_and_Offset_Measures_Plan_-_A7D0Y5.pdf?nodeid=3902281&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/2909558/3027606/3546801/3723301/A96593-1_Peace_River_Mainline_Abandonment_Project_Condition_14_Chinchaga_Caribou_Range_Vegetation_Restoration_Plan_-_A6L9L4.pdf?nodeid=3723302&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/2909558/3027606/3546801/3748010/A97635-1_PRML_-_Condition_14_Chinchaga_Caribou_Range_Vegetation_Restoration_Plan_-_A6R5K8.pdf?nodeid=3748011&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/666941/704296/849117/878197/A3C7R7_-_Cond_10a_LKXO_-_Revised_Prelim_CHRP.pdf?nodeid=878293&vernum=-2


https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/666941/737909/949353/973743/A3J2G0_-_Chinchaga_Lateral_Loop_No_3_-_Condition_10a_Revised_Prelim_CHRP.pdf?nodeid=973841&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/666941/737909/949353/2770596/Chinchaga_Lateral_Loop_No.3_Condition_10_Revised_Final_CHRP_-_A4K9V9.pdf?nodeid=2774543&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/2445209/2523776/2796658/Liege_Lateral_Loop_2_%28Thornbury_Section%29_and_Leismer_East_CS_Project_-_Preliminary_CHRP_-_A4R1I9.pdf?nodeid=2797560&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/2445209/2523776/2811688/Liege_Lateral_Loop_2_%28Thornbury_Section%29_and_Leismer_East_Compressor_Station_-_Revised_Preliminary_CHRP_-_A4S5W1.pdf?nodeid=2811395&vernum=-2


https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/666941/685859/819328/843799/A2X1F8_-_2012-08-15_NWML_Expansion_-_Condition_7a.pdf?nodeid=843698&vernum=-2


https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/2671288/2758964/3028130/3027684/2017_NGTL_System_Expansion_Project_-_Cond_7_Revised_CHR-OMP_-_A5E8Y1.pdf?nodeid=3027910&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/3422050/3615024/3933971/C06714-1_NGTL_2018_MS_and_Laterals_Abandonment_Cond_6_Egg-Pony_Caribou_Range_Habitat_Restoration_Plan_-_A7G2C2.pdf?nodeid=3933972&vernum=-2




Monitoring results are available from on-ROW and offset area habitat restoration for the following projects: Northwest Mainline Expansion,23 Leismer to Kettle River Crossover,24 Northwest Mainline Komie North Extension (Chinchaga Lateral Loop No. 3),25 and Liege Lateral Loop 2 (Thornbury Section) and Leismer East Compressor Station.26 Based on NGTL’s experience with these projects, the following lessons learned were considered, and where appropriate, incorporated into existing programs: • NGTL has removed different multipliers for ‘continuous’ versus ‘discontinuous’

application of access or line-of-sight measures and the temporal risk multiplier is now based on multiple criteria.

• The application of discontinuous rollback across the width of a ROW as an access management measure has been removed from NGTL’s toolkit. The ineffective use of rollback occurs when a project ROW is contiguous with another ROW that is operated by another party. Unless there is agreement from the other party to apply continuous rollback across the width, and it is safe and operationally feasible to do so, discontinuous rollback will not be used for access management.

• NGTL will not deploy cameras for the purpose of monitoring access management effectiveness where access management cannot be properly implemented (e.g., across the full width of a ROW). NGTL is committed to continuing discussions with provincial regulatory authorities on the issue of recreational and third-party access, and an integrated approach to ROW restoration.

• Access management locations will be strategically placed and managed to allow for operational access requirements and consideration of recreational, industrial, and traditional access needs.

• NGTL has implemented ‘lattice style’ rollback for access management in areas where the volume of appropriately sized timber is available. The lattice style is designed to be more effective because it is harder to move without specialized equipment (not prone to vandalism) and can be effective over a reduced length of treatment. Rollback does not act as a barrier to ungulate movement.

• Line-of-sight measures will not be implemented where a pipeline is contiguous with existing infrastructure. Although purposely installed line-of-sight measures (such as fabricated screens) will no longer be used, it is expected that as replanted trees grow on NGTL’s restored ROWs, line of sight along the ROW will be reduced over time (as a secondary effect).

• NGTL has found earth and woody debris berms to be ineffective as line-of-sight breaks. Predators have been observed by field personnel using these features as vantage points, providing a clear view of the surrounding landscape. Also, earth

23 CER and NEB Filing IDs: C04914-1 and A61246. 24 NEB Filing ID: A61262. 25 NEB Filing ID: A75414. 26 CER Filling ID: C04912.

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/666941/685859/819328/3909938/C04914-1_NGTL_Northwest_Mainline_Expansion_Project_-_Caribou_Monitoring_Report_-_A7D7H3.pdf?nodeid=3909939&vernum=-2



https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/666941/737909/949353/2922582/A75414-2_02_Final_OMP_-_A4X9V4.pdf?nodeid=2922480&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/2445209/2523776/3910280/C04912-1_NGTL_Liege_Lateral_Loop_2_%28Thornbury_Section%29_-_Cond._9_Caribou_Monitoring_Report_-_A7D7G4.pdf?nodeid=3910281&vernum=-2



and woody debris berms require large volumes of material that are generally not available during pipeline construction. Earth and woody berms are prone to erosion and decomposition, resulting in the inability to maintain an effective line of sight break in the long term. Woody debris berms have also been deemed a fire hazard by local forestry officers.

• Tree planting on a linear corridor can have shading issues that are not seen on cutblocks (typical silvicultural practices). This could result in changes to the planting densities and planting considerations and configurations may be modified as the monitoring program progresses to reflect those site-specific conditions.

• NGTL uploads habitat restoration and access control locations to a spatial database (GEOFIND) that is accessible by all project personnel. The caribou habitat restoration areas can be avoided or replaced when implementing NGTL’s ROW and pipeline maintenance program. Where pipeline maintenance occurs in restoration areas, access will be routed to/incur the least amount of disturbance. Measures that must be removed will be replaced after maintenance activities are complete.

• During monitoring activities, ground access will create a path to restoration plots, which conflicts with the goals and objectives of monitoring programs. Ground and helicopter access will also become increasingly difficult due to advancing revegetation. NGTL will evaluate access alternatives and methods for future monitoring programs (e.g., LiDAR, 360 imagery, subsampling) to avoid disturbing restoration areas.

• To avoid the disturbance of habitat restoration measures from third parties, NGTL has implemented changes to the terms and conditions for new crossing agreements. The third party is responsible for restoring the ROW to pre-disturbance conditions, to the extent practical. The third party will be required to comply with all reasonable instructions of an NGTL Representative to complete the work (NGTL 2018).




9.0 REFERENCES

BC CDC (British Columbia Conservation Data Centre). 2021. Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Available at: Search Criteria (gov.bc.ca). Accessed March 2021.

BC MAL (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands). 2007. Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/mc/files/MC_Recovery_Implementation_Plan_Backgrounder_20071016.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

BC MFLNRO (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations). 2016. South Peace Northern Caribou Standardized Industry Management Practices. October 2016. Version 5.0. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Prince George, BC. 50 pp. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/regional-wildlife/northeast-region/caribou/simps_-_october_2016.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

BC MFLNRORD and BC MECCS (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development and British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy). 2018. Science Review for the South Peace Northern Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou pop. 15 and pop. 18) in British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 71 pp. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/central-mountain-caribou. Accessed March 2021.

BC MOE. 2010. Science Update for the Boreal Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou pop. 14) in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 54 pp. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/recovery/Boreal_Caribou_Science_Update_MoE_13Oct2010.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

BC MOE. 2011. Implementation Plan for the Ongoing Management of Boreal Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou pop. 14) in British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 17 pp. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at-risk/recovery-planning/boreal_caribou_implementation_plan_final_12aug2011.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

BC MOE. 2013a. Implementation Plan for the Ongoing Management of South Peace Northern Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou pop. 15) in British Columbia. Victoria, BC. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/central-mountain-caribou. Accessed March 2021.

https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/mc/files/MC_Recovery_Implementation_Plan_Backgrounder_20071016.pdf

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/mc/files/MC_Recovery_Implementation_Plan_Backgrounder_20071016.pdf

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/regional-wildlife/northeast-region/caribou/simps_-_october_2016.pdf



https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/central-mountain-caribou


http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/recovery/Boreal_Caribou_Science_Update_MoE_13Oct2010.pdf

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/recovery/Boreal_Caribou_Science_Update_MoE_13Oct2010.pdf

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at-risk/recovery-planning/boreal_caribou_implementation_plan_final_12aug2011.pdf







BC MOE. 2013b. Guidance for the Development of Caribou Mitigation and Monitoring Plans for South Peace Northern Caribou – April 17, 2013. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/central-mountain-caribou. Accessed March 2021.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2011. Designatable Units for Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 88 pp. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/migration/cosewic-cosepac/4e5136bf-f3ef-4b7a-9a79-6d70ba15440f/cosewic_caribou_du_report_23dec2011.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

COSEWIC. 2014a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Newfoundland Population, Atlantic-Gaspésie Population, and Boreal Population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. xxiii + 128 pp.

COSEWIC. 2014b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Northern Mountain Population, Central Mountain Population and Southern Mountain Population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. xxii + 113 pp. Available at: https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Caribou_Northern_Central_Southern_2014_e.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

COSIA (Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance). 2019. Caribou Knowledge Extension Library. Available at: Caribou Knowledge Extension Library | Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance - COSIA. Accessed March 2021.

CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2019. CSA Z662-19: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. 8th edition. Toronto, ON.

CRRP (Caribou Range Restoration Project). 2007a. Caribou Range Restoration Project: Guidelines for Planning and Implementation.

CRRP. 2007b. Little Smoky Caribou Habitat Restoration Pilot Project Summary. Prepared for Suncor Energy, ConocoPhillips Canada, Canadian Forest Products and Alberta Newsprint Co. Unpublished Document.

DeCesare, N.J., M. Hebblewhite, F. Schmiegelow, D. Hervieux, G.J. McDermid, L. Neufeld, M. Bradley, J. Whittington, K.G. Smith, L.E. Morgantini, M. Wheatley and M. Musiani. 2012. Transcending scale dependence in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. Ecological Applications 22:1068–1083.



https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/migration/cosewic-cosepac/4e5136bf-f3ef-4b7a-9a79-6d70ba15440f/cosewic_caribou_du_report_23dec2011.pdf

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/migration/cosewic-cosepac/4e5136bf-f3ef-4b7a-9a79-6d70ba15440f/cosewic_caribou_du_report_23dec2011.pdf

https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Caribou_Northern_Central_Southern_2014_e.pdf



https://www.cosia.ca/resources/project-research/caribou-knowledge-extension-library

https://www.cosia.ca/resources/project-research/caribou-knowledge-extension-library




DeLong, C., A. Banner, W.H. MacKenzie, B.J. Rogers, and B. Kaytor. 2011. A Field Guide to Ecosystem Identification for the Boreal White and Black Spruce Zone of British Columbia. Land Management Handbook No. 65. British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. Victoria, BC.

Dickie, M., R. Serrouya, C. DeMars, J. Cranston, and S. Boutin. 2017. Evaluating functional recovery of habitat for threatened woodland caribou. Ecosphere. Available at: Evaluating functional recovery of habitat for threatened woodland caribou - Dickie - 2017 - Ecosphere - Wiley Online Library. Accessed March 2021.

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). 2018. Imminent Threat Assessment for Southern Mountain Caribou. Available at: https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/ImminentThreatAnalysisSmc-v00-2018Jun-Eng.pdf Accessed March 2021.

ECCC. 2020. Amended Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. Species at Risk Recovery Strategy Series. Environmental and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, ON. xiii + 143 pp. Available at: https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/plans/Rs-CaribouBorealeAmdMod-v01-2020Dec-Eng.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

ECCC and Government of British Columbia. 2017. Canada-British Columbia Southern Mountain Caribou (Central Group) Protection Study. May 2017. 113 pp. Available at: https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/ProtectionStudy-Smc-central-v01-0217-Eng.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

Enbridge (Enbridge Pipelines [Athabasca] Inc). 2010. Waupisoo Pipeline Project: 2010 Green Area Post-Construction Reclamation Assessment. Submitted to Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Calgary, AB.

Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain Population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. viii + 103 pp.

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd). 2010. Canadian Natural Resources Limited: Primrose and Wolf Lake: Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Program Development and Implementation. Prepared for Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Calgary, AB.

Golder. 2011. Waupisoo Pipeline 2011 Seedling Monitoring Plot Summary. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. Calgary, AB.

Golder. 2018. Preliminary Tactical Restoration Plan for the South Peace Northern Caribou Ranges. 1786876-003-R-Rev0. Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. Fort St. John, BC.

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.1936

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.1936

https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/ImminentThreatAnalysisSmc-v00-2018Jun-Eng.pdf



https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/plans/Rs-CaribouBorealeAmdMod-v01-2020Dec-Eng.pdf

https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/plans/Rs-CaribouBorealeAmdMod-v01-2020Dec-Eng.pdf

https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/ProtectionStudy-Smc-central-v01-0217-Eng.pdf

https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/ProtectionStudy-Smc-central-v01-0217-Eng.pdf



Government of British Columbia. 2021a. Provincial Caribou Recovery Program. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/recovery-program. Accessed March 2021.

Government of British Columbia. 2021b. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Management Under the Oil and Gas Activities Act and Environmental Protection and Management Regulation. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/caribou/northerncaribou_ogaa_faqs.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

Government of British Columbia. 2021c. Central Mountain Caribou. Available at: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/central-mountain-caribou. Accessed March 2021.

Government of British Columbia. 2021d. Caribou in British Columbia. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou. Accessed March 2021.

Government of Canada. 2021. Species at Risk Public Registry. Available at: Species at risk public registry - Canada.ca. Accessed March 2021.

Government of Canada and Government of British Columbia. 2020. Conservation Agreement for Southern Mountain Caribou in British Columbia, February 2020. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/caribou/canada_british_columbia_conservation_agreement_for_southern_mountain_caribou_in_british_columbia.pdf. Accessed March 2021.

Government of Canada, Government of British Columbia, Saulteau First Nations, and West Moberly First Nations. 2020. Intergovernmental Partnership Agreement for the Conservation of the Central Group of the Southern Mountain Caribou, February 2020. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/partnership-agreement. Accessed March 2021.

Latham, A.D.M., M.C. Latham, N.A. McCutchen and S. Boutin. 2011. Invading white-tailed deer change wolf-caribou dynamics in northeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:204–212.

Natural Resource Board. 2013. Natural Resource Board Direction: Planning and Approval of Development Activities in the South Peace Northern Caribou Area. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/recovery-program

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/recovery-program

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/caribou/northerncaribou_ogaa_faqs.pdf



http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/central-mountain-caribou

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/central-mountain-caribou

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/caribou/canada_british_columbia_conservation_agreement_for_southern_mountain_caribou_in_british_columbia.pdf




https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/partnership-agreement

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/partnership-agreement





ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/central-mountain-caribou. Accessed March 2021.

NGTL (NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.). 2018. Year One Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program – Revised Year One Report. Northwest Mainline Expansion Project, Leismer-Kettle River Crossover Project, and Chinchaga Lateral Loop No. 3. Available at: Canada Energy Regulator - REGDOCS - A98227 National Energy Board - Letter to NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. – Updated Year One Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program Report (cer-rec.gc.ca). Accessed March 2021.

NGTL. 2019. North Montney Mainline Project Preliminary Caribou Habitat Offset Measures Plan. Available at: A99182-1_North_Montney_Preliminary_Caribou_Habitat_OMP_-_A6U1A7.pdf (cer-rec.gc.ca). Accessed March 2021.

NGTL. 2020a. Northwest Mainline Loop (Boundary Lake North Section. Final Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan. Available at: Regulatory Services - Contents (cer-rec.gc.ca). Accessed March 2021.

NGTL 2020b. Smoky River Lateral Loop. Final Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan. Available at: Regulatory Services - Contents (cer-rec.gc.ca). Accessed March 2021.

Osko, T., and M. Glasgow. 2010. Removing the Wellsite Footprint: Recommended Practices for Construction and Reclamation of Wellsites on Upland Forests in Boreal Alberta. University of Alberta, Department of Biological Sciences. Edmonton, AB. 61 pp.

Pelletier, A., and D. Seip. 2019. Population status of Central Mountain caribou herds in British Columbia and response to recovery management actions, 2019. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, Fort St. John, BC. 24 pp.

Stantec (Stantec Consulting Ltd.). 2018a. Revised Preliminary Offsets Measures Plan for Caribou Habitat - High Pine Expansion Project. Prepared for Westcoast Energy Inc, Calgary, AB. 51 pp + appendices.

Stantec. 2018b. Preliminary Offset Measures Plan for Caribou Habitat: Wyndwood Pipelines Expansion Project. Prepared for Westcoast Energy Ltd., Calgary, AB. 48 pp + appendices.











https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/3173681/3394028/3899885/C04473-1_NGTL_Smoky_River_Lateral_Loop_-_Caribou_Habitat_Restoration_and_Offset_Measures_Plan_-_A7D0Y5.pdf?nodeid=3902281&vernum=-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney Project

Appendix A

Appendix A

Preliminary Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan Filing History and Related Links


Appendix A

Document Filing Date Filing ID and Link Preliminary Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan (CHRP)

July 15, 2015 NEB Filing ID: A4R4X1 NEB Filing ID: A4R4X2 (appendices)

Withdrawal of Preliminary CHRP August 6, 2015 NEB Filing ID: A71646 Revised Preliminary CHRP August 21, 2015 NEB Filing ID: A4S9A4 Supporting Errata (to the Revised Preliminary CHRP)

August 31, 2015 NEB Filing ID: A4T0F0

National Energy Board (NEB) approval

October 22, 2015 NEB Filing ID: A73379-1

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/1060220/2759738/2798295/North_Montney_Mainline_Condition_15_CHRP_-_Sections_-_A4R4X1.pdf?nodeid=2798296&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/1060220/2759738/2798295/North_Montney_Mainline_Condition_15_CHRP_-_Appendices_-_A4R4X2.pdf?nodeid=2797551&vernum=-2


https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/1060220/2759738/2813080/North_Montney_Mainline_-_Revised_Preliminary_CHRP_-_A4S9A4.pdf?nodeid=2813280&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/1060220/2759738/2813785/North_Montney_Mainline_-_Revised_Preliminary_CHRP_Errata_2_of_2._-_A4T0F0.pdf?nodeid=2813416&vernum=-2

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/915551/1060220/2759738/2838991/A73379-1_Letter_-_Certificate_GC-125_-_condition_15%281%29_-_A4U6E6.pdf?nodeid=2839196&vernum=-2


Appendix B

Appendix B

Glossary of Terms


Appendix B

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Definition

Access Control Plots Access management treatment locations are monitored to determine ROW usage and effectiveness of access controls. Access control measures are designed to deter off-road and vehicular access along newly restored sections of new alignment of the Project ROW and at offset locations.

CHROMP/CHR&OMP Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Plan CHROMMP Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program; program

through which the effectiveness of habitat restoration and offsetting measures are monitored.

CHROMMP Update Report

Technical report summarizing monitoring results from the ground-based monitoring program and remote camera program for a monitoring period (e.g., Year 1 monitoring results).

CHRIR/CHRIRSU/ Restoration Implementation Report

Caribou Habitat Restoration Implementation Report; summarizes the implementation and status of caribou habitat restoration measures undertaken on the Project footprint within caribou habitat.

CHOMIR/Offsets Implementation Report

Caribou Habitat Offset Measures Implementation Report; summarizes the implementation and status of caribou habitat restoration measures undertaken for Project offsets within caribou habitat.

Contiguous Meaning “sharing a common border”; that is, a project is adjacent to, and shares space with, existing disturbance, typically an existing pipeline right-of-way.

Delivery Risk Multiplier An offset multiplier that pertains to the challenges and uncertainty of a habitat restoration measure and its likelihood of implementation success and effectiveness; applied when calculating the Initial Offset Value and Final Offset Value. The more likely that a habitat restoration measure will be effective, the smaller the delivery risk multiplier.

Direct Project Effect The surface disturbance area of a project’s footprint within caribou habitat, e.g., ROW, temporary workspace; excluding areas that overlap existing, permanent, non-vegetated anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., sections that intersect existing roads). Direct Project Effect is a component in the quantification of the Project Effect.

Disturbance As defined in a federal recovery strategy for woodland caribou (i.e., Boreal Population; Southern Mountain Population). In the context of the Project, it refers to areas where the surface is disturbed to construct the pipeline.

Ditchline Area of project footprint that is subject to surface disturbance, trenching and backfilling to install the pipeline; generally, 2 m wide. The center of the ditchline is buffered by 5 m on either side to determine the operational ROW.

Existing Permanent Disturbance

Area of the project footprint that is disturbed prior to construction (e.g., an existing foreign disposition) and will not be restored following project construction.

Final Offset Value (FOV) Calculated using the Updated IOV, actual areas and measures used for on-ROW habitat restoration, and on the selection of offset locations and measures. The FOV accounts for delivery, temporal, and spatial risks, and inherent effects associated with restoration of linear features.

Ground-based Monitoring Program

Completed in Q3 of years 1,3,5,10 and 15 following the implementation of habitat restoration and offset measures. Monitoring years 1, 3 and 5 evaluate habitat restoration, as well as vegetation survival and establishment efforts, allowing NGTL to implement site-specific adaptive management actions as needed. Years 10 and 15 focus on habitat restoration performance, long-term trajectory, and the success of adaptive management actions undertaken in previous years

Habitat Restoration Plots/Restoration Plots

Monitoring plots selected within the Project footprint or offsets that were previously disturbed and have undergone planting or staking.





Habitat Type Classification of the monitoring plot habitat based on the adjacent ecological communities and biogeoclimatic influences. Habitat types within the monitoring program include Treed Upland (including transitional habitat), Treed Lowland and Shrub/graminoid classifications.

Initial Offset Value (IOV) Calculated using the planned or as-built project footprint and planned on-ROW habitat restoration measures. The IOV accounts for delivery and temporal risks, and inherent effects associated with restoration of linear features.

Line-of-Sight (LOS) Block Plots

Monitoring locations used to determine the effectiveness of LOS blocks installed to deter visual spotting of caribou by predators. LOS blocks are designed to block sight lines along sections of new alignment of ROW to decrease predation from predators such as wolves.

Monitoring Plots Plots placed along the footprint or offsets to assess vegetation survival and growth targets of the ground-based monitoring program. Plots are classified by restoration unit type based on the treatment type and habitat type at the plot location.

Mounding A restoration and access control measure that uses excavated organic materials in a mounded formation alternated with excavation holes. Mounding is used primarily for access controls in areas specified on project plans and is combined with other habitat restoration and offset measures (i.e., planting as directed by NGTL). Mounding is also used as a restoration technique to create microsite conditions suitable for conifer seeding planting and growth.

Natural Regeneration (Control) Plots

Monitoring plots placed on sites disturbed by construction that are undergoing natural regeneration (i.e., sites left to regenerate from the soil seed bank and natural ingress)

Offset A means for compensating for the Residual Project Effect (i.e., direct and indirect effects) that cannot be restored on-site (e.g., the unrestored portions of the project footprint) with the goal of no net loss of caribou habitat.

Offset Measures Plan (OMP)

Plan that describes the methods and steps for calculating the Initial Offset Value and the Final Offset Value and provides decision frameworks for selecting an appropriate offset(s)

Operational ROW A 10-m wide area that buffers the installed pipeline that is subject to periodic vegetation management to maintain operational access, except where there is overlap with existing, permanent disturbance (e.g., a road).

Planned (or Implemented) Restored Footprint

The area of the project footprint that is planned for restoration (e.g., temporary workspace) or the area of the project footprint on which habitat restoration has already been implemented. Planned (or Implemented) Restored Footprint is required to calculate the Residual Project Effect.

Project Effect The combined spatial area of Direct Project Effect and Indirect Project Effect after mitigation but before implementation of habitat restoration measures.

RAP Restricted Activity Period Remote Camera Monitoring Program

The objective of the camera monitoring program is to assess the effectiveness of Access Control (AC) measures in preventing or deterring off-highway vehicle access (OHV) within woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) habitat undergoing post-construction habitat restoration. The camera monitoring program also evaluates incidental wildlife occurrence within the access controls.

Residual Direct Disturbance Value (RDDV)

The treatment unit areas that account for the inherent effect of contiguous alignment. RDDV is used to calculate the Initial Offset Value and is calculated by multiplying each treatment unit by the Inherent Effect Multiplier. In the case of a non-linear project, RDDV is the total area classed as planned (or implemented) habitat restoration or unrestored.



Appendix B


Residual Direct Project Effect

Direct Project Effect minus the Planned (or Implemented) Restored Footprint; that is, the unrestored area of the project footprint (e.g., operational ROW). Residual Direct Project Effect is used the calculate the Residual Project Effect.

Residual Indirect Disturbance Value (RIDV)

The area represented by a 500 m permanent disturbance buffer applied to the unrestored project footprint (e.g., operational ROW), less areas of existing direct and indirect permanent anthropogenic disturbance. RIDV is used to calculate the Initial Offset Value and is calculated by subtracting the area of existing direct and indirect permanent disturbance from the Project's indirect buffer.

Residual Indirect Project Effect

The area represented by a 500 m permanent disturbance buffer applied to the unrestored project footprint (e.g., operational ROW), less areas of existing direct and indirect permanent anthropogenic disturbance. Residual Indirect Project Effect is used to calculate the Residual Project Effect.

Residual Post-Restoration Value (RPRV)

The Residual Direct Project Effect that remains after on-ROW restoration has been implemented, accounting for the temporal risk and delivery risk associated with the restoration measures used. RPRV is used to calculate the Initial Offset Value and is calculated by multiplying each treatment unit RDDV by the risk multipliers.

Residual Project Effect The total amount of project disturbance that remains after planned or implemented habitat restoration; includes the project footprint areas that will not be restored (e.g., operational ROW) and the temporal delay and delivery risk associated with restored areas. The Residual Project Effect includes the Residual Direct Project Effect and the Residual Indirect Project Effect.

Restoration Unit Type Classification of monitoring plots based upon the treatment at the plot location (i.e., natural regeneration or restoration through planting or staking) combined with the habitat type.

Rollback Merchantable timber harvested from the Project footprint, or from nearby operations, that are placed on the footprint to deter human access along the line and augment restoration through the creation of microsites for vegetation establishment.

Spatial Risk Multiplier A multiplier that pertains to the location of the offset restoration measures relative to the caribou range affected; applied in the calculation of the Final Offset Value. The closer an offset is applied relative to the location of the project footprint, the smaller the spatial risk multiplier.

Temporal Risk Multiplier An offset multiplier that pertains to when each habitat restoration measure would be expected to be achieved, accounting for the time (in years) between when the effect commences (i.e., vegetation is cleared) and when the restored habitat becomes ecological or functionally effective; applied in the calculation of the Initial Offset Value and the Final Offset Value. The shorter the temporal risk or lag to achieve effectiveness, the smaller the temporal risk multiplier.

Treatment Type Monitoring plots are classified as undergoing natural regeneration or restoration treatment through planting or staking.

Vegetation Screen A strip of vegetation retained along a section of the pipeline right-of-way or construction footprint at an intersection with an existing linear disturbance. Vegetation screens block line-of-sight and can deter human access.

Zipper Planting Planting pattern used for Line-of-Sight blocking where a 50 m gap left unplanted adjacent to the edge of the construction footprint is alternated with a gap over the centerline of the footprint.

Note: Not all glossary terms are included in each caribou filing document



Appendix C

Appendix C

Extent of Existing Disturbance and Project Effects

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

Williston L.

ABBC

Pouce Coupe

Fort St. John

Ingenika Point

Dawson CreekManson Creek

ChetwyndGermansenLanding

Hudson's Hope

Groundbirch

SunsetPrairie

Taylor

BuickWonowon

Pink Mountain

unsigned FSR

Beryl Prairie Rd

GrahamHerd Range

Appendix C

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.North Montney MainlineFinal Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan

Notes

> Kilometre PostProject Footprint

Contiguous New Cut

Caribou Herd RangeCutblockPrivate Land

RoadResourceUnclassified

HydrologyRiver Waterbody

Low-impact Seismic LineConventional SeismicLine

Existing DisturbancesPermanent, DirectPermanent, IndirectTemporary, DirectTemporary, Indirect

Project DisturbancesPermanent, Direct(Residual Effect)Permanent, IndirectTemporary, DirectTemporary, Indirect

W:\C

lient

s\Tra

nsCa

nada

\Aitk

enCr

eek\

Figur

es\W

ildlife

\202

0082

6_NM

ML_

OMP_

addi

tiona

l_tas

k_dje

nkins

\figu

res_C

HRP_

for_n

orth

_mon

tena

y\12

1511

126_

0324

_App

endix

_C_E

xtent

_of_B

aseli

ne_a

nd_In

crem

enta

l_Pro

ject_D

isturb

ance

_with

in_Ca

ribou

_Ran

ge.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2021

-03-30

By: D

CSpr

y

($

$¯

123512868

Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.

NTS 094A13BCGS 094A081

Prepared by DS on 2021-03-30Technical Review by DJ on 2021-03-30

Quality Review by MP on 2021-03-30

EXTENT OF EXISTING DISTURBANCEAND PROJECT EFFECTSSheet 1 of 2

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N2. Data Source: Government of British Columbia, Government of Canada3. Not all features may be present on each page and some features may not be visible because of the disturbance hierarchy (i.e., baselinetemporary direct disturbance is not visible because it is hierarchically below baseline permanent direct and indirect disturbances).4. Conventional Seismic Line data from 2018

00

Area ofInterest

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Rev.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>>>>

unsigned FSR

Beryl Prairie Rd

84+000

85+00086+00087+000

88+00089+000

84+500

85+500

86+50087+50088+50089+500

GrahamHerd Range

($

$¯

0 100 200 300 400 500m

Existing Disturbances

0 100 200 300 400 500m

Project Disturbances

Page 1 of 2

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

Williston L.

ABBC

Pouce Coupe

Fort St. John

Ingenika Point

Dawson CreekManson Creek

ChetwyndGermansenLanding

Hudson's Hope

Groundbirch

SunsetPrairie

Taylor

BuickWonowon

Pink Mountain

Farre

ll Cre

ek

unsigned FSR

GrahamHerd Range

Appendix C


Notes

> Kilometre PostProject Footprint

Contiguous New Cut

Caribou Herd RangeCutblockPrivate Land



Low-impact Seismic LineConventional SeismicLine

Existing DisturbancesPermanent, DirectPermanent, IndirectTemporary, DirectTemporary, Indirect

Project DisturbancesPermanent, Direct(Residual Effect)Permanent, IndirectTemporary, DirectTemporary, Indirect

W:\C

lient

s\Tra

nsCa

nada

\Aitk

enCr

eek\

Figur

es\W

ildlife

\202

0082

6_NM

ML_

OMP_

addi

tiona

l_tas

k_dje

nkins

\figu

res_C

HRP_

for_n

orth

_mon

tena

y\12

1511

126_

0324

_App

endix

_C_E

xtent

_of_B

aseli

ne_a

nd_In

crem

enta

l_Pro

ject_D

isturb

ance

_with

in_Ca

ribou

_Ran

ge.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2021

-03-30

By: D

CSpr

y

($

$ ¯

123512868





EXTENT OF EXISTING DISTURBANCEAND PROJECT EFFECTSSheet 2 of 2

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N2. Data Source: Government of British Columbia, Government of Canada3. Not all features may be present on each page and some features may not be visible because of the disturbance hierarchy (i.e., baselinetemporary direct disturbance is not visible because it is hierarchically below baseline permanent direct and indirect disturbances).4. Conventional Seismic Line data from 2018

00

Area ofInterest

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Rev.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Farre

ll Cre

ek

unsigned FSR89+000

90+000

91+000

92+00093+000

88+500

89+500

90+50091+500

92+50093+500

GrahamHerd Range

($

$ ¯

0 100 200 300 400 500m

Existing Disturbances

0 100 200 300 400 500m

Project Disturbances

Page 2 of 2


Appendix D

Appendix D

Habitat Restoration Measures Toolkit

Appendix D NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney Project

March 2021

Treatment Type Expected Effectiveness

Discrete Barriers (fences/berms)

There is little information on the effectiveness of discrete barriers in the literature, but they are considered to have value in terms of limiting line-of-sight and reducing human, and possibly predator, access. Based on examples from other linear projects, berms should be at least 1.5 m tall, and fences 2-3 m tall, to be considered effective. Berms have been removed as a restoration measure based on monitoring results to date. The berms (made of earth or timber) break down or erode over time and lose effectiveness. They have also been used as vantage points for predators, making them completely ineffective as line-of-sight breaks. Fences would only be used around facility footprints and potentially as barriers on private access roads to those facilities. BC MOE (2011) Golder (2015a) NGTL (2015)The delivery risk multiplier developed by Northern Resource Analysts (2016) is directlylinked to effectiveness of the treatment. For ‘Discrete Barriers (fences/berms)’, thedelivery risk multiplier ranges from 2.0 to 2.5, depending on whether a low or highintensity application is used.The expected effectiveness of this treatment is considered low to moderate relative to other treatment.

Barrier Segments (rollback/mounding) * variations ofmounding includebar mounding (soilpiles are created inrows perpendicularto lines) and angleslicing (an angledditch and moundalong a line) (Pyperet al. 2014)

Compared to discrete barriers, there is better information on the effectiveness of barrier segments (rollback/mounding) in the literature. These measures are used primarily to deter human and predator access but can also serve to limit line-of-sight. Based on standard operating practices and examples from use on other linear projects, barrier segments that use rollback should be implemented at lengths between 50 m and 100 m (as directed by the Company) along the ROW, and at a volume between 150-200 m3/ha to be considered effective. If mounding is used, mounds should be applied at 600-1,200 mounds/ha with a depth of between 60 cm and 80 cm to be consideredeffective. The effectiveness of barrier segments (rollback/mounding) is supported by: AER (2013) Bentham and Coupal (2014) CLMA and FPAC (2007) Dickie et al. (2016) EOS (2009) Golder (2012) Golder (2015a) NACW (2014) Pyper et al. (2014)The delivery risk multiplier developed by Northern Resource Analysts (2016) is directlylinked to effectiveness of the treatment. For ‘Barrier Segments (rollback/mounding)’, thedelivery risk multiplier ranges from 1.5 to 2.5, depending on whether a low or highintensity application is used, or how long the application segment is.The expected effectiveness of this treatment is considered low to high relative to other treatments, depending on intensity of application.

Page 1 of 7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney Project Appendix D

March 2021


Barrier Segments (tree bending, hinging, or felling)

Barrier segments (tree-bending, hinging, or felling) can be used to achieve functional and ecological restoration objectives on narrow linear features such as seismic lines. For barrier segments to be effective at a landscape scale, it is typically applied to several kilometers, either continuously along a single line, or to multiple lines that form a linear network, with the goal of restoring landscape connectivity or continuous patches of habitat. Finding linear features to apply barrier segments can be challenging, especially when the offset proponent has no land tenure or when long-term securement is needed (Northern Resource Analysts 2016). This treatment is only moderately effective on large diameter pipeline ROWs due to the large operational ROW width and the ability of the hinged/bent trees to obscure the open ROW for an extended period. In British Columbia, in consultation with provincial regulators, a preliminary analysis of potential seismic lines eligible for restoration (pending site-specific review and Indigenous engagement and consultation) have been identified for the South Peace Northern Caribou herd ranges, including the Graham LPU (Government of British Columbia 2018). The largest linear feature removal program currently underway is the Cenovus Linear Deactivation program in Alberta (Pyper et al. 2014). The program includes two study sites within the Cold Lake caribou range. The program aims to treat 250 km of seismic lines. The deactivation treatments include combinations of mounding, tree planting, woody material recruitment (through tree felling, tree bending, and rollback of existing material), fill planting, and natural revegetation. A similar, but much smaller (4.75 km), linear deactivation program was implemented by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. for the Kirby In Situ Oil Sands Expansion Project in the East Side Athabasca River caribou range (Pyper et al. 2014). The deactivation treatment applied was primarily tree felling to deter access and reduce line-of-sight; tree-hinging, which places the fallen log on top of an elevated stump, was also applied. Tree-bending or felling is also being piloted in the Parker caribou range of the Boreal Caribou population (Golder 2015b). The expected effectiveness of this treatment is dependent on the combination of above-mentioned treatments used. However, tree-bending, hinging, or felling applied in segments of at least 200 m is considered relatively effective at blocking access, limiting line-of-site, and fostering natural or planting vegetation regrowth. While the treatment is effective in the short term and facilitates rapid regrowth and protection of planted seedlings, the felled trees will break down and begin to decompose over time. Whether this period coincides with the regrowth of existing vegetation and seedlings, is unknown. The effectiveness of barrier segments (tree-bending, hinging, or felling) is supported by: Dickie et al. (2016) Government of British Columbia (2018) Golder (2015b) Pyper et al. (2014)A delivery risk multiplier for barrier segments (tree-bending, hinging, or felling) was notdeveloped by Northern Resource Analysts (2016). However, through extrapolation, areview of current information on the success of the method, and when applied withother restoration techniques (e.g., tree planting between segments), it is expected tohave moderate effectiveness in terms of achieving functional and ecological restorationgoals. Subsequently, the delivery risk multiplier has been estimated to range from 1.5to 2.0, depending on whether tree seedlings or natural regeneration are used betweensegments.The expected effectiveness of this treatment is considered moderate to high relative to other treatments if it can be applied across the entire opening and depending on application.

Page 2 of 7


March 2021


Tree Planting for Future Barrier (zipper planting)

There is little information in the literature specific to this treatment. However, the treatment is essentially a smaller, more discrete, application of the ‘Tree Planting to Accelerate Reforested State’ treatment (see below). Zipper planting (50 m in length) is identified as a viable option for managing line-of-sight; in caribou range, coniferous species are considered more effective than deciduous species. However, NGTL will plant vegetation screens with deciduous species or use the “snow ramp” method to provide a barrier where planting of coniferous trees is not suitable. CLMA and FPAC (2007) Culling et al. (2004) Pyper et al. (2014)The delivery risk multiplier developed by Northern Resource Analysts (2016) is directlylinked to effectiveness of the treatment. For ‘Tree Planting for Future Barrier’, thedelivery risk multiplier is 1.25. As with ‘Tree Planting to Accelerate Reforested State’,there is a temporal lag that can delay effectiveness. The temporal delay is based onplanting tree seedlings, but the temporal delay could be lessened if older (taller) treesare planted.The expected effectiveness of this treatment is considered high relative to other treatments.

Tree Planting to Accelerate Reforested State

By following recommended restoration techniques (e.g., soil handling; site preparation) and replanting standards (e.g., stem density; species composition; spacing) for the ecosystem units being restored and measuring restoration performance over a period of up to 20 years within the context of an adaptive management framework, the expected effectiveness of this treatment is considered high. The expected effectiveness is based on the following references: AENV (2010) AESRD (2013) BC MFLNRO (2014) Brown and Naeth (2014) Lee and Boutin (2006) Golder (2012, 2015a) Osko and Glasgow (2010) Pyper and Vinge (2012) Pyper et al. (2014) Vinge and Pyper (2012)The delivery risk multiplier developed by Northern Resource Analysts (2016) is directlylinked to effectiveness of the treatment. For ‘Tree Planting to Accelerate ReforestedState’, the delivery risk multiplier is 1.25, indicating high effectiveness, or low deliveryrisk.The expected effectiveness of this treatment is considered high relative to other treatments.

Page 3 of 7


March 2021


Seeding and Left for Natural Revegetation

Shrub Planting and Left for Natural Revegetation

Seeding or shrub planting have lower value as a treatment because of long temporal delays and increased delivery risk. NGTL only seeds cover crops on sloped areas that have been graded and have high erosion potential. Also, shrubs may be staked in riparian areas where an open cut crossing was installed. The planting of shrubs will be consistent with the BC Forest Practices Code and Riparian Area Restoration Guidelines: BC FPC (1995) BC MOF (2002)A delivery risk multiplier for seeding and shrub planting was not developed by NorthernResource Analysts (2016), but reasonable extrapolation can be inferred from deliveryrisk multipliers applied to other treatments. For ‘Seeding and Left for NaturalRevegetation’ and ‘Shrub Planting and Left for Natural Revegetation’, the delivery riskmultiplier is 2.5 (i.e., half as effective as ‘Tree Planting to Accelerate Reforested State’),based on the expectation that there would be greater competition among plants(primarily from faster-growing deciduous species), lower rate and density of coniferousseedling establishment, and greater seed predation or browsing pressure by ungulateson the deciduous shrubs. The temporal delay to achieve delivery effectiveness is alsogreater (i.e., 3.3 multiplier) compared to ‘Tree Planting to Accelerate Reforested State’.The expected effectiveness of this treatment is considered moderate relative to other treatments.

Linear Feature Removal or Deactivation * this treatment iscomprised of oneor more of theabove-mentionedhabitat restorationtreatments. It istypically applied toseveral kilometersof legacy lines(e.g., seismic) thatare not currently ona trajectory towardnatural recovery.

The purpose of this treatment is to achieve habitat restoration by removing the linear feature from the landscape to prevent motorized access; limit predator movement (primarily wolves) to a rate that is equal to, or lower than, rates observed off linear features; and allow for caribou use. For linear feature deactivation to be effective at the landscape scale, it is typically applied to several kilometres, either continuously along a single line, or to multiple lines that form a linear network. Finding locations to remove linear features, especially when the offset proponent has no land tenure or when long-term securement is needed, has been shown to be challenging (Northern Resource Analysts 2016). This treatment is only considered in consultation with the provincial regulator, where it can be offered long term protection and where there are no NGTL pipelines available to treat in that caribou range. The largest linear feature removal program currently underway is the Cenovus Linear Deactivation program in Alberta (Pyper et al. 2014). The program includes two study sites within the range of the Cold Lake caribou herd range; the program aims to treat 250 km of seismic lines. The deactivation treatments include combinations of mounding, tree planting, woody material recruitment (through tree felling, tree bending, and rollback of existing material), fill planting, and natural revegetation. A similar, but much smaller (4.75 km), linear deactivation program was implemented by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. for the Kirby In Situ Oil Sands Expansion Project in the East Side Athabasca River caribou herd range (Pyper et al. 2014). The deactivation treatment applied was primarily tree felling to deter access and reduce line-of-sight; tree-hinging, which places the fallen log on top of an elevated stump, was also applied. The expected effectiveness of this treatment is dependent on the combination of above-mentioned treatments used.

References

AENV (Alberta Environment). 2010. 2010 Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities for Forested Lands (Updated June 2011). Edmonton, AB.

AER (Alberta Energy Regulator). 2013. Integrated Standards and Guidelines. Enhanced Approval Process. December 1, 2013. Edmonton, AB.

Page 4 of 7


March 2021

AESRD (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development). 2013. Reforestation Standards for Alberta. Government of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

BC FPC (British Columbia Forest Practice Code). 1995. Forest Practices Code Guidebook. BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC.

BC MFLNRO (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations). 2014. A Compendium of Wildlife Guidelines for Industrial Development Projects in the North Area, British Columbia: Interim Guidance. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Fort St. John, BC.

BC MOE (British Columbia Ministry of Environment). 2011. Interim Operating Practices for Oil and Gas Activities in Identified Boreal Caribou Habitat in British Columbia. September 22, 2011. Available at: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/boreal-caribou. Accessed January 2020.

BC MOF (British Columbia Ministry of Forests). 2002. Guidelines for: Riparian Restoration in British Columbia. Recommended riparian zone silviculture treatments. Available at: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00077/riparian_guidelines.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Bentham, P., and B. Coupal. 2014. Habitat restoration as a key conservation lever for woodland caribou: a review of restoration programs and key findings from Alberta. 15th North American Caribou Workshop, Whitehorse, YT. May 12-16, 2014.147 pp.

Brown, R.L., and M.A. Naeth. 2014. Woody debris amendment enhances reclamation after oil sands mining in Alberta, Canada. Restoration Ecology 22:40–48

CLMA and FPAC (Caribou Landscape Management Association and the Forest Products Association of Canada. 2007. Woodland Caribou Recovery: Audit of Operating Practices and Mitigation Measures Employed within Woodland Caribou Ranges. Prepared for: CLMA and FPAC. Prepared by: P. Bentham, Golder Associates, Edmonton, AB. 135 pp + appendices.

Culling, D., B. Culling, R. Backmeyer, and T. Antoniuk. 2004. Interim oil and gas industry guidelines for boreal caribou ranges in northeastern British Columbia. Technical Report. 31 pp.

Dickie, M., R. Serrouya, R.S. McNay, and S. Boutin. 2016. Faster and farther: wolf movement on linear features and implications for hunting behavior. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12732.

Page 5 of 7


March 2021

EOS (EOS Research and Consulting). 2009. Review of strategies and tools for access management. Submitted to Foothills Landscape Management Forum, Hinton, AB. 99 pp.

Golder (Golder Associates). 2012. Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration. Report submitted to BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Fish and Wildlife Management Branch, Prince George, BC. Available at: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/caribou/boreal-caribou. Accessed January 2020.

Golder. 2015a. Boreal Caribou Habitat Restoration Operational Toolkit for British Columbia. Prepared for BC Science and Community Environmental Knowledge (SCEK) Fund’s Research and Effectiveness Monitoring Board (REMB), Calgary, AB. Available at: http://www.bcogris.ca/boreal-caribou/projects/complete. Accessed January 2020.

Golder. 2015b. Parker Caribou Range: Boreal Caribou Restoration Pilot Program Plan. Submitted to the British Colombia Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society’s Research and Environmental Monitoring Board. 30 November 2015.

Government of British Columbia. 2018. Preliminary Tactical Restoration Plan for the South Peace Northern Caribou Ranges: Caribou Tactical Restoration Plan. Prepared for BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, Fort St. John, BC. 77 pp + appendices.

Lee, P., and S. Boutin. 2006. Persistence and developmental transition of wide seismic lines in the western Boreal Plains of Canada. Journal of Environmental Management 78:240–250.

NACW (North American Caribou Workshop). 2014. Caribou Conservation and Management: What’s Working? Proceeding of the 15th North American Caribou Workshop. Whitehorse, YT. 98 pp.

NGTL (Nova Gas Transmission Ltd.). 2015. 2017 NGTL System Expansion Project Additional Written Evidence, Section 9 Appendices: Appendix 9-1 Preliminary Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Mitigation Plan. Prepared for National Energy Board, Calgary, AB. Available at: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/2017nvgsxpnsn/index-eng.html. Accessed January 2020.

Northern Resource Analysts. 2016. Chinchaga Lateral Loop No. 3 Final Offset Measures Plan for Residual Project Effects to Caribou Habitat. Prepared for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, AB.

Page 6 of 7

Appendix ANOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney Project

March 2021

Osko, T.J., and M. Glasgow. 2010. Removing the well-site footprint: recommended practices for construction and reclamation of wellsites on upland forests in boreal Alberta. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Pyper, M., and T. Vinge. 2012. A Visual Guide to Handling Woody Materials for Forested Land Reclamation. Oil Sands Research and Information Network, University of Alberta, School of Energy and the Environment, Edmonton, AB. Report No. TR-31. 10 pp.

Pyper, M., J. Nishi, and L. McNeill. 2014. Linear feature restoration in caribou habitat: a summary of current practices and a roadmap for future programs. Prepared for Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, Calgary, AB. 38 pp + appendices. Available at: https://www.cosia.ca/uploads/documents/id24/COSIA_Linear_Feature_Restoration_Caribou_Habitat.pdf. Accessed January 2020.

Vinge, T., and M. Pyper. 2012. Managing woody materials on industrial sites: Meeting economic, ecological, and forest health goals through a collaborative approach. Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 32 pp.

Page 7 of 7


Appendix E

Appendix E

Photos of Potential Habitat Restoration Measures

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.North Montney MainlineFinal Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan Appendix E

Photoplates

December 2020 Page 1 of 7

Plate 1: Example of the effectiveness of minimal disturbance construction in forested areas. Photo shows growth after one growing season. Photo source: NGTL.

Plate 2: Example of coarse woody debris rollback for access management on a non-parallel pipeline ROW. The debris also creates microsites to enhance vegetation establishment and growth. Photo source: NGTL.

Appendix E Photoplates

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.North Montney Mainline

Final Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan

Page 2 of 7 December 2020

Plate 3: Example of conifer seedling planting on a pipeline ROW. The upland area has sufficient drainage and suitable soils for seedling establishment and growth. Photo source: CH2M Hill.

Plate 4: Example of access management implemented on a ROW with parallel developments. Note the ATV tracks that divert around the woody debris rollback. Photo source: NGTL.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney MainlineFinal Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan Appendix E

Photoplates


Plate 5: Aerial view of mounding in lowland on a non-parallel portion of the ROW. Photo source: NGTL.

Plate 6: Aerial view of combination rollback and mounding as access management on a non-parallel portion of the ROW. Photo source: NGTL.


NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney Mainline



Plate 7: Example of a wood berm designed to deter access and reduce line-of-sight. This measure is no longer used due to the risks associated with forest fires. Photo source: NGTL.

Plate 8: Example of a vegetation screen retained along edge of pipeline right-of-way at intersection with an existing linear disturbance. Vegetation screens block line-of-sight and can effectively manage access. Photo source: CH2M Hill.


Photoplates


Plate 9: Example of a ramp-over area where a snow ramp was packed over vegetation in a treed lowland. The resultant vegetation screen will also contribute to natural regeneration. This measure can only be used in seasons with high snowfall. Photo source: CH2M Hill.

Plate 10: Fabricated line-of sight on a ROW paralleled by another ROW and a power line. This measure is not fully effective due to the presence of adjacent developments where no line-of-sight measures are implemented. Photo source: NGTL.


NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney Mainline



Plate 11: Example of mounding combined with conifer seedling planting on a ROW. The combination of measures is intended to manage access, and facilitate revegetation of conifers. Photo source: NGTL.

Plate 12: Example of shrub staking in the riparian area at a watercourse crossing. Photo source: NGTL.


Photoplates


Plate 13: Example of lattice placement of rollback. Photo source: NGTL.


Appendix F

Appendix F

Typical Drawings


Page 1 of 6


Page 2 of 6


Page 3 of 6


Page 4 of 6


Page 5 of 6


Page 6 of 6


Appendix G

Appendix G

Footprint Elements and Planned Habitat Restoration Measures

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

WillistonL.

Pouce Coupe

Fort St. John

Dawson CreekChetwynd

Hudson's Hope

Groundbirch

SunsetPrairie

Taylor

BuickWonowon

Pink Mountain

Appendix G


Notes

> Kilometre PostProject FootprintCaribou Herd RangePrivate Land



Footprint ElementsOperational Right-of-wayUnmaintained Right-of-way andTemporary Workspace

Restoration MeasuresMounding, Plant Black SprucePlant Black SprucePlant White SpruceRollback, Plant White Spruce

UnrestoredMaintained (Operational Right-of-way)No Reforestation/Other Dispositions

W:\C

lient

s\Tra

nsCa

nada

\Aitk

enCr

eek\

Figur

es\W

ildlife

\202

0082

6_NM

ML_

OMP_

addi

tiona

l_tas

k_dje

nkins

\figu

res_C

HRP_

for_n

orth

_mon

tena

y\12

1511

126_

0325

_App

endix

_G_F

ootp

rint_E

lemen

ts_an

d_Pla

nned

_Hab

itat_R

esto

ratio

n_M

easu

res.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2021

-03-31

By: D

CSpr

y

($

$ ¯

123512868





FOOTPRINT ELEMENTS ANDPLANNED HABITAT RESTORATIONMEASURES

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N2. Data Source: Government of British Columbia, Government of Canada3. Imagery Source: TCPL_AITKENS_CREEK_RASTER.DBO.AITKENS_CREEK_HRSIMAGERY_Z10_R

00

Area ofInterest

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Rev.

($

$ ¯

0 40 80 120 160 200m

Footprint Elements

0 40 80 120 160 200m

Restoration Measures

PagePage 1 of 5

BC

Page: 1

GrahamHerd Range

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

WillistonL.

Pouce Coupe

Fort St. John


Hudson's Hope

Groundbirch

SunsetPrairie

Taylor

BuickWonowon

Pink Mountain

Appendix G


Notes


RoadUnclassified





W:\C

lient

s\Tra

nsCa

nada

\Aitk

enCr

eek\

Figur

es\W

ildlife

\202

0082

6_NM

ML_

OMP_

addi

tiona

l_tas

k_dje

nkins

\figu

res_C

HRP_

for_n

orth

_mon

tena

y\12

1511

126_

0325

_App

endix

_G_F

ootp

rint_E

lemen

ts_an

d_Pla

nned

_Hab

itat_R

esto

ratio

n_M

easu

res.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2021

-03-31

By: D

CSpr

y

($

$¯

123512868







00

Area ofInterest

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Rev.

($

$¯

0 40 80 120 160 200m

Footprint Elements

0 40 80 120 160 200m


PagePage 2 of 5

BC

Page: 2

GrahamHerd Range

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

WillistonL.

Pouce Coupe

Fort St. John


Hudson's Hope

Groundbirch

SunsetPrairie

Taylor

BuickWonowon

Pink Mountain

Appendix G


Notes







W:\C

lient

s\Tra

nsCa

nada

\Aitk

enCr

eek\

Figur

es\W

ildlife

\202

0082

6_NM

ML_

OMP_

addi

tiona

l_tas

k_dje

nkins

\figu

res_C

HRP_

for_n

orth

_mon

tena

y\12

1511

126_

0325

_App

endix

_G_F

ootp

rint_E

lemen

ts_an

d_Pla

nned

_Hab

itat_R

esto

ratio

n_M

easu

res.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2021

-03-31

By: D

CSpr

y

($

$¯

123512868







00

Area ofInterest

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Rev.

($

$¯

0 40 80 120 160 200m

Footprint Elements

0 40 80 120 160 200m


PagePage 3 of 5

BC

Page: 3GrahamHerd Range

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

WillistonL.

Pouce Coupe

Fort St. John


Hudson's Hope

Groundbirch

SunsetPrairie

Taylor

BuickWonowon

Pink Mountain

Appendix G


Notes







W:\C

lient

s\Tra

nsCa

nada

\Aitk

enCr

eek\

Figur

es\W

ildlife

\202

0082

6_NM

ML_

OMP_

addi

tiona

l_tas

k_dje

nkins

\figu

res_C

HRP_

for_n

orth

_mon

tena

y\12

1511

126_

0325

_App

endix

_G_F

ootp

rint_E

lemen

ts_an

d_Pla

nned

_Hab

itat_R

esto

ratio

n_M

easu

res.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2021

-03-31

By: D

CSpr

y

($

$¯

123512868







00

Area ofInterest

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Rev.

($

$¯

0 40 80 120 160 200m

Footprint Elements

0 40 80 120 160 200m


PagePage 4 of 5

BC

Page: 4

GrahamHerd Range

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

WillistonL.

Pouce Coupe

Fort St. John


Hudson's Hope

Groundbirch

SunsetPrairie

Taylor

BuickWonowon

Pink Mountain

Appendix G


Notes


RoadUnclassified





W:\C

lient

s\Tra

nsCa

nada

\Aitk

enCr

eek\

Figur

es\W

ildlife

\202

0082

6_NM

ML_

OMP_

addi

tiona

l_tas

k_dje

nkins

\figu

res_C

HRP_

for_n

orth

_mon

tena

y\12

1511

126_

0325

_App

endix

_G_F

ootp

rint_E

lemen

ts_an

d_Pla

nned

_Hab

itat_R

esto

ratio

n_M

easu

res.m

xd

Rev

ised:

2021

-03-31

By: D

CSpr

y

($

$ ¯

123512868







00

Area ofInterest

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Rev.

($

$ ¯

0 40 80 120 160 200m

Footprint Elements

0 40 80 120 160 200m


PagePage 5 of 5

BC

Page: 5

GrahamHerd Range


Appendix H

Appendix H

Aerial Photos of the Project Footprint – Adjacent Landcover and Selected Treatment Units

(Pre-Implementation), June 18, 2020 (Source: CCI Inc. and SolSpec)

Appendix H Nova Gas Transmission Ltd.

North Montney Mainline

KP: 84+700

Prescribed Treatment: Plant white spruce

Adjacent Landcover: Cutblock

Comment: Beyond the cutblock the forest is mature deciduous with spruce understory

Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. North Montney Mainline Appendix H

KP: 85+300

Prescribed Treatment: Mounding, plant black spruce

Adjacent Landcover: Mature black spruce

Comment: Area has very wet soils



KP: 85+800

Prescribed Treatment: Rollback, plant white spruce

Adjacent Landcover: Cutblock – would have been mature mixedwood

Comment: Rollback already complete (visible in photo)


KP: 87+100

Prescribed Treatment: Plant black spruce

Adjacent Landcover: Spruce with wet ground



KP: 88+100


Adjacent Landcover: Mixedwood; spruce and aspen with wet ground


KP: 88+700


Adjacent Landcover: Mixedwood; spruce and aspen



KP: 89+700


Adjacent Landcover: Black spruce


KP: 91+000


Adjacent Landcover: Aspen with spruce understory

suite 210, 517 tenth avenue sw north montney project

Documents