Thumbnails Outlines
  • V5C_COVER
  • V5C_TR_5C1_ACID_ROCK
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1. Project Description
      • 1.2. Scope
    • 2.0 GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN ARD MANAGEMENT
      • Table 2-1. ARD/ML Management Guidelines.
    • 3.0 IDENTIFICATION
      • 3.1. Desktop Study
      • 3.2. ARD/ML Sampling Methods
      • 3.3. Static Testing
      • Table 3-1. Acid Rock Drainage Screening Criteria (Mend, 2005).
    • 4.0 RESULTS
      • 4.1. Acid Base Accounting Results
      • 4.2. Metals
      • 4.3. Shake Flask Extractions (SFE)
      • Figure 4-1. NP vs. pH for Mineralized Samples along TMEP Study Corridor.
      • Figure 4-2. Total-Sulphur vs. Paste pH.
      • Figure 4-3. Sulphide Sulphur vs. Total Sulphur.
      • Figure 4-4. Standard Sobek NP vs. Sulphide Acid Potential (AP).
    • 5.0 DISCUSSION
      • 5.1. Site TMEP-004
      • 5.2. Site TMEP-019
      • 5.3. Site TMEP-026
      • 5.4. Site TMEP-042
      • 5.5. Mitigation
      • Table 5-1. Potential Mitigation Options.
    • 6.0 CLOSURE
    • APPENDIX A SITE DESCRIPTIONS
    • APPENDIX B ACID BASE ACCOUNTING DATA
    • APPENDIX C ARD/ML SITES IDENTIFIED IN DESKTOP STUDY
    • APPENDIX D ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
      • DWG. 01 ARD/ML SAMPLE LOCATIONS BRITISH COLUMBIA
      • DWG. 02 ARD/ML S AMP LE LOCATIONSALBERTA
  • V5C_TR_5C2_SOILS
  • V5C_TR_5C3_TERR_NOISE_VIBR
    • 1. INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Description
      • 1.2 Objectives
      • 1.3 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.3.1 Federal Standards
        • 1.3.2 Provincial Standards
    • 2. CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Review Agencies
      • Table 2-1 Summary of ESA Technical Workshop Concerns for Acoustics
      • Table 2-2 Summary of Consultation Activities Related to Acoustic Assessments
    • 3. METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
      • 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
        • 3.2.1 Sound and Noise
        • 3.2.2 HC Guidance
        • 3.2.3 Airborne and Ground-borne Vibration
      • 3.3 Study Area Boundaries
      • 3.4 Assessment Approach and Description of Assessment Cases
        • 3.4.1 Literature / Desktop Review
        • 3.4.2 Field Data Collection
        • 3.4.3 Emissions Estimation
        • 3.4.4 Propagation Models
      • Table 3-1 AER Directive 038/BC OGC Guideline : Basic Permissible Sound Levels by LandUse Category
      • Table 3-2 AER Directive 038/BC OGC Guideline Table 3 – Class B Adjustments
      • Table 3-3 Ontario MOE NPC-119 Noise Pollution Control Guideline for Blasting Activity
      • Table 3-4 Peak Vibration (inches per second) Tolerated by Humans for 1-second Events (After ANSI S3.29 – 1983)
      • Table 3-5 Summary of Measured Source Specific Sound Power Levels
      • Table 3-6 Noise Model Configuration Parameters
    • 4. RESULTS OF EXISTING CASE ASSESSMENT
      • 4.1 Discussion of Existing Sound Levels along Proposed Pipeline Segments
        • 4.1.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.1.2 Hinton to Hargreaves Segment
        • 4.1.3 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.1.4 Darfield to Black Pines Segment
        • 4.1.5 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.1.6 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.1.7 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
      • 4.2 Discussion of Existing Sound Levels surrounding Pump Stations and Terminals
        • 4.2.1 Edmonton Terminal
        • 4.2.2 Gainford Pump Station
        • 4.2.3 Edson Pump Station
        • 4.2.4 Hinton Pump Station
        • 4.2.5 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 4.2.6 Blackpool Pump Station
        • 4.2.7 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 4.2.8 Kamloops Pump Station
        • 4.2.9 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 4.2.10 Sumas Pump Station
        • 4.2.11 Sumas Terminal
        • 4.2.12 Burnaby Terminal
        • 4.2.13 Westridge Marine Terminal
      • Figure 4-11 Class A2 Ambient Monitoring Adjustment Factor
      • Table 4-1 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Edmonton Terminal
      • Table 4-2 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Edmonton Terminal
      • Table 4-3 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Gainford Pump Station
      • Table 4-4 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Source, Gainford Pump Station
      • Table 4-5 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Gainford Pump Station
      • Table 4-6 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Edson Pump Station
      • Table 4-7 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Sources, Edson Pump Station
      • Table 4-8 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Edson Pump Station
      • Table 4-9 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Hinton Pump Station
      • Table 4-10 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Source, Hinton Pump Station
      • Table 4-11 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Hinton Pump Station
      • Table 4-12 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Rearguard Pump Station
      • Table 4-13 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Sources, Rearguard Pump Station
      • Table 4-14 Sound Transmission Loss and Sound Transmission Class of Standard Building Panel (dB)
      • Table 4-15 Louvre Octave Band Insertion Loss (IL) Values (dB)
      • Table 4-16 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Rearguard Pump Station
      • Table 4-17 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Blackpool Pump Station
      • Table 4-18 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Sources, Blackpool Pump Station
      • Table 4-19 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Blackpool Pump Station
      • Table 4-20 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Black Pines Pump Station
      • Table 4-21 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Kamloops Pump Station
      • Table 4-22 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Source, Kamloops Pump Station
      • Table 4-23 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Kamloops Pump Station
      • Table 4-24 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Kingsvale Pump Station
      • Table 4-25 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Source, Kingsvale Pump Station
      • Table 4-26 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Kingsvale Pump Station
      • Table 4-27 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Sumas Pump Station
      • Table 4-28 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Sources, Sumas Pump Station
      • Table 4-29 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Sumas Pump Station
      • Table 4-30 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Sumas Terminal
      • Table 4-31 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Sources, Sumas Terminal
      • Table 4-32 Sound Transmission Loss of Environmental Enclosure (dB)
      • Table 4-33 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Sumas Terminal
      • Table 4-34 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Burnaby Terminal
      • Table 4-35 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Sources, Burnaby Terminal
      • Table 4-36 Sound Transmission Loss of Environmental Enclosure (dB)
      • Table 4-37 Louvre Octave Band Insertion Loss (IL) Values (dB)
      • Table 4-38 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Burnaby Terminal
      • Table 4-39 Location of Receptors, ASL, PSL Values, Westridge Marine Terminal
      • Table 4-40 Existing Calculated Noise Emission Sources, Westridge Marine Terminal
      • Table 4-41 Sound Transmission Loss of Environmental Enclosure (dB)
      • Table 4-42 Cumulative Existing Sound levels, Westridge Marine Terminal
    • 5. RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION CASE ASSESSMENT
      • 5.1 Sound Generated by Construction of Pipeline/ Pump Station/ Terminals
        • 5.1.1 Helicopter Activities
        • 5.1.2 Clearing
        • 5.1.3 Trenching
        • 5.1.4 Blasting
        • 5.1.5 Welding
        • 5.1.6 Placement of Pipe
        • 5.1.7 Construction of Pump Stations and Terminals
        • 5.1.8 Reclamation of Land
        • 5.1.9 Construction Activity Noise Predictions
      • 5.2 Airborne and Ground-borne Vibration Generated by Blasting
      • 5.3 Discussion of Pipeline Segment Construction Sound Level Results
        • 5.3.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 5.3.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 5.3.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 5.3.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 5.3.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
      • 5.4 Discussion of Pump Station and Terminal Noise Results
        • 5.4.1 Edmonton Terminal
        • 5.4.2 Gainford Pump Station
        • 5.4.3 Edson Pump Station
        • 5.4.4 Hinton Pump Station
        • 5.4.5 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 5.4.6 Blackpool Pump Station
        • 5.4.7 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 5.4.8 Kamloops Pump Station
        • 5.4.9 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 5.4.10 Sumas Pump Station
        • 5.4.11 Sumas Terminal
        • 5.4.12 Burnaby Terminal
        • 5.4.13 Westridge MarineTerminal
      • 5.5 Discussion of Blasting Noise and Vibration Results
      • Figure 5-1 Anticipated Construction Sound Levels
      • Table 5-1 Helicopter Sound Power Levels Activities
      • Table 5-2 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Clearing Activities
      • Table 5-3 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Trenching Activities
      • Table 5-4 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Trenching Activities
      • Table 5-5 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Welding Activities
      • Table 5-6 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Pipe Placement Activities
      • Table 5-7 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Pump Station Site Preparation
      • Table 5-8 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Pump Station Installation Phase
      • Table 5-9 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Edmonton and Burnaby Terminals Site Preparation
      • Table 5-10 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Sumas and Westridge Marine Terminals Site Preparation
      • Table 5-11 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Edmonton and Burnaby Terminals Installation Phase
      • Table 5-12 Equipment Sound Power Levels for Sumas and Westridge Marine Terminals Installation Phase
      • Table 5-13 Typical Sound Power Levels for Pile Driving
      • Table 5-14 Equipment Sound Power Levels for the Reclamation of Land
      • Table 5-15 Distances to Noise Sensitive Receptors Within the Acoustic Environment LSA of Proposed Pipeline Corridor Alongthe Edmonton to Hinton Segment
      • Table 5-16 Distances to Noise Sensitive Receptors Within the Acoustic Environment LSA of Proposed Pipeline Corridor Along the Hargreaves to Darfield
      • Table 5-17 Distances to Noise Sensitive Receptors Within the Acoustic Environment LSA of Proposed Pipeline Corridor Along the Black Pines to Hope Segment
      • Table 5-18 Distances to Noise Sensitive Receptors Within the Acoustic Environment SLA of Proposed Pipeline Corridor Along the Hope to Burnaby Segment
      • Table 5-19 Distances to Noise Sensitive Receptors Within the Acoustic Environment LSA of Proposed Pipeline Corridor Along the Burnaby to Westridge Segment
      • Table 5-20 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Edmonton Terminal
      • Table 5-21 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Gainford Pump Station
      • Table 5-22 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Edson Pump Station
      • Table 5-23 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Hinton Pump Station
      • Table 5-24 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Rearguard Pump Station
      • Table 5-25 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Blackpool Pump Station
      • Table 5-26 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Black Pines Pump Station
      • Table 5-27 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Kamloops Pump Station
      • Table 5-28 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Kingsvale Pump Station
      • Table 5-29 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Sumas Pump Station
      • Table 5-30 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Sumas Terminal
      • Table 5-31 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Burnaby Terminal
      • Table 5-32 Predicted Daytime Construction Sound Level at Receptors Surrounding the Westridge Marine Terminal
    • 6. RESULTS OF APPLICATION CASE ASSESSMENT
      • 6.1 Edmonton Terminal
      • 6.2 Gainford Pump Station
      • 6.3 Edson Pump Station
      • 6.4 Hinton Pump Station
      • 6.5 Rearguard Pump Station
      • 6.6 Black Pines Pump Station
      • 6.7 Kamloops Pump Station
      • 6.8 Kingsvale Pump Station
      • 6.9 Sumas Pump Station
      • 6.10 Sumas Terminal
      • 6.11 Burnaby Terminal
      • 6.12 Westridge Marine Terminal
      • Table 6-1 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Edmonton Terminal
      • Table 6-2 Sound Transmission Loss and Sound Transmission Class of Standard Building Panel (dB)
      • Table 6-3 Louvre Octave Band Insertion Loss (IL) Values (dB)
      • Table 6-4 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Edmonton Terminal
      • Table 6-5 HC Sound levels, Edmonton Terminal
      • Table 6-6 Low Frequency Analysis for Edmonton Terminal
      • Table 6-7 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Gainford Pump Station
      • Table 6-8 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Gainford Pump Station
      • Table 6-9 HC Sound levels, Gainford Pump Station
      • Table 6-10 Low Frequency Analysis for Gainford Pump Station
      • Table 6-11 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Edson Pump Station
      • Table 6-12 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Edson Pump Station
      • Table 6-13 HC Sound Levels, Edson Pump Station
      • Table 6-14 Low Frequency Analysis for Edson Pump Station
      • Table 6-15 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Hinton Pump Station
      • Table 6-16 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Hinton Pump Station
      • Table 6-17 HC Sound levels, Hinton Pump Station
      • Table 6-18 Low Frequency Analysis for Hinton Pump Station
      • Table 6-19 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Rearguard Pump Station
      • Table 6-20 Cumulative Application Case Sound Levels, Rearguard Pump Station
      • Table 6-21 HC Sound Levels, Rearguard Pump Station
      • Table 6-22 Low Frequency Analysis for Rearguard Pump Station
      • Table 6-23 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Blackpool Pump Station
      • Table 6-24 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Blackpool Pump Station
      • Table 6-25 HC Sound levels, Blackpool Pump Station
      • Table 6-26 Low Frequency Analysis for Blackpool Pump Station
      • Table 6-27 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Black Pines Pump Station
      • Table 6-28 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Black Pines Pump Station
      • Table 6-29 HC Sound Levels, Black Pines Pump Station
      • Table 6-30 Low Frequency Analysis for Black Pines Pump Station
      • Table 6-31 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Kamloops Pump Station
      • Table 6-32 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Kamloops Pump Station
      • Table 6-33 HC Sound Levels, Kamloops Pump Station
      • Table 6-34 Low Frequency Analysis for Kamloops Pump Station
      • Table 6-35 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Kingsvale Pump Station
      • Table 6-36 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Kingsvale Pump Station
      • Table 6-37 HC Sound Levels, Kingsvale Pump Station
      • Table 6-38 Low Frequency Analysis for Kingsvale Pump Station
      • Table 6-39 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Sumas Pump Station
      • Table 6-40 Cumulative Application Case Sound Levels, Sumas Pump Station
      • Table 6-41 HC Sound Levels, Sumas Pump Station
      • Table 6-42 Low Frequency Analysis for Sumas Pump Station
      • Table 6-43 Proposed Noise Emission Source for the Sumas Terminal
      • Table 6-44 Sound Transmission Loss of Environmental Enclosure (dB)
      • Table 6-45 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Sumas Terminal
      • Table 6-46 HC Sound Levels, Sumas Terminal
      • Table 6-47 Low Frequency Analysis for Sumas Terminal
      • Table 6-48 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Burnaby Terminal
      • Table 6-49 Sound Transmission Loss of Environmental Enclosure (dB)
      • Table 6-50 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Burnaby Terminal
      • Table 6-51 HC Sound Levels, Burnaby Terminal
      • Table 6-52 Low Frequency Analysis for Burnaby Terminal
      • Table 6-53 Proposed Noise Emission Sources for the Westridge Marine Terminal
      • Table 6-54 Sound Transmission Loss of Environmental Enclosure (dB)
      • Table 6-55 Cumulative Application Case Sound levels, Westridge Marine Terminal
      • Table 6-56 HC Sound Levels, Westridge Marine Terminal
      • Table 6-57 Low Frequency Analysis for Westridge Marine Terminal
    • 7. DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 7.1 Pipeline
        • 7.1.1 General Recommendations
        • 7.1.2 Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 7.2 Pump Stations
        • 7.2.1 General Recommendations
        • 7.2.2 Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 7.3 Tanks
        • 7.3.1 General Recommendations
        • 7.3.2 Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 7.4 Westridge Marine Terminal
        • 7.4.1 General Recommendation
        • 7.4.2 Post-Construction Monitoring
    • 8. REFERENCES
    • Figure 4-1 Proposed Project Configuration Map
    • Figure 4-2 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors and Existing Edmonton Terminal
    • Figure 4-3 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Gainford Pump Station and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-4 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Edson Pump Station and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-5 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Hinton Pump Station and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-6 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Rearguard Pump Station 4-6and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-7 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Blackpool Pump Station 4-7and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-8 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors and Proposed Black Pines Pump Station
    • Figure 4-9 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Kamloops Pump Station 4-9and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-10 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Kingsvale Pump Station and 4-10Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-12 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Sumas Pump Station and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-13 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Sumas Terminal and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-14 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Burnaby Terminal and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 4-15 Site Plan Showing Location of Receptors, Existing Westridge Terminal and Existing Sound Level Contours
    • Figure 5-2 Site Plan Showing Location of Closest Receptor Within Edmonton to Hinton Segment
    • Figure 5-3 Site Plan Showing Location of Closest Receptor Within Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
    • Figure 5-4 Site Plan Showing Location of Closest Receptor Within Black Pines to Hope Segment
    • Figure 5-5 Site Plan Showing Location of Closest Receptor Within Hope to Burnaby Segment
    • Figure 5-6 Site Plan Showing Location of Closest Receptor Within Burnaby to Westridge Segment
    • Figure 6-1 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Location
    • Figure 6-2 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-3 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-4 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-5 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Location
    • Figure 6-6 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-7 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-8 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-9 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-10 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-11 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-12 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
    • Figure 6-13 Predicted Sound Level Contours and Receptor Locations
  • V5C_TR_5C4_AIR_GHG
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • 1. INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1. Project Overview
      • 1.2. Objectives
      • 1.3. Regulatory Standards
        • 1.3.1. National Air Quality Criteria
        • 1.3.2. Provincial Standards in Alberta
        • 1.3.3. Provincial Standards in British Columbia
      • Table 1.1: National Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (in µg/m³)
      • Table 1.2: Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO) (in µg/m³)
      • Table 1.3: British Columbia and Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Quality Objectives (in µg/m³)
    • 2. CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Engagement
      • Table 2.1: Summary of Consultation Activities Related to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessments
    • 3. METHODS
      • 3.1. Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
        • 3.1.1. CAC, VOC and Reduced Sulphurs
        • 3.1.2. Greenhouse Gases
        • 3.1.3. Operational Emissions
        • 3.1.4. Construction Emissions
      • 3.2. Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
      • 3.3. Study Area Boundaries
        • 3.3.1. Air Quality
        • 3.3.2. Greenhouse Gases
      • 3.4. Assessment Approach and Description of Assessments
        • 3.4.1. Literature and Desktop Review
        • 3.4.2. Emissions Estimation – CACs and VOCs
        • 3.4.3. Emissions Estimation - Greenhouse Gases
        • 3.4.4. Modelling
      • Figure 3.1: Map of Study Areas for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 3.2: Map of Study Areas for Kamloops Terminal
      • Figure 3.3: Map of Study Areas for Sumas Terminal
      • Figure 3.4: Map of Study Areas for Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 3.5: Map of LFV Study Area for Assessment of Secondary Smog-Related Products
      • Figure 3.6: Map of Lower Fraser Valley Study Area (with marine RSA shown in black)
      • Figure 3.7: Map of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor
      • Figure 3.8: Model Receptor Grid and Surface Stations in the Edmonton Terminal RSA
      • Figure 3.9: Model Receptor Grid and Surface Stations in the Kamloops Terminal RSA
      • Figure 3.10: Model Receptor Grid and Surface Stations in the Sumas Terminal RSA
      • Figure 3.11: Model Receptor Grid and Surface Stations in the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals RSA
      • Figure 3.12: Dependence of NO2/NOX Ratio on Ambient NOX Concentrations Based on 1-Hour Observations for the Kamloops Terminal RSA
      • Figure 3.13: Dependence of NO2/NOX Ratio on Ambient NOX Concentrations Based on 24-Hour Observations for the Kamloops Terminal RSA
      • Figure 3.14: Dependence of NO2/NOX Ratio on Ambient NOX Concentrations Based on 1-Hour Observations for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals RSA
      • Figure 3.15: Dependence of NO2/NOX Ratio on Ambient NOX Concentrations Based on 24-Hour Observations for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals RSA
      • Table 3.1: Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints for Air Quality
      • Table 3.2: Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints for GHG
      • Table 3.3: List of Meteorological Stations Used to Characterize Climatic Conditions along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor
      • Table 3.4: List of Air Quality Stations Summarized by Pipeline Segment along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor
      • Table 3.5: Product Throughput Used for Reasonable Maximum Operating Scenario (in bpd)
      • Table 3.6: Specifications of Existing Diesel Generators and Fire Water Pumps
      • Table 3.7: Specifications of Proposed Diesel Generators and Fire Water Pumps
      • Table 3.8: Specifications of Line Heaters at Kamloops Terminal
      • Table 3.9: Edmonton Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Existing Conditions
      • Table 3.10: Edmonton Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Proposed with Project
      • Table 3.11: Kamloops Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Existing Conditions(a)
      • Table 3.12: Sumas Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Existing Conditions
      • Table 3.13: Sumas Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Proposed with Project
      • Table 3.14: Burnaby Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Existing Conditions
      • Table 3.15: Burnaby Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Proposed with Project
      • Table 3.16: Westridge Marine Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Existing Conditions
      • Table 3.17: Westridge Marine Terminal Storage Tank Parameters for TANKS Model – Proposed with Project
      • Table 3.18: Marine Vessel Loading TOC Emission Rates and Associated Product Throughput
      • Table 3.20: Speciation Profile Sources used for VOCs and COPCs
      • Table 3.23: Surface Stations Used in CALMET
      • Table 3.24: Point Source Parameters for Line Heaters at Kamloops Terminal
      • Table 3.25: Point Source Parameters for Marine Vessels Hotelling at Berth
      • Table 3.26: Monitoring Stations for Background Ozone and Ammonia Concentrations
      • Table 3.27: CALPUFF Dry Deposition Parameters for Gases
      • Table 3.28: CALPUFF Dry Deposition Parameters for Particles (in µm)
      • Table 3.29: CALPUFF Wet Deposition Parameters (in s-1)
      • Table 3.30 Background Concentrations used in the Air Quality Assessment (in µg/m³)
      • Table 3.31 Total Annual VOC Emissions and Speciation Profiles for Background Industrial Facilities Near Edmonton Terminal (in tonnes/y)
    • 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS
      • 4.1. Results of Literature/Desktop Review and Field Data Collection
        • 4.1.1. Meteorological Conditions
        • 4.1.2. Existing Air Quality Conditions – BTEX
        • 4.1.3. Existing Air Quality Conditions – Total Reduced Sulphur
        • 4.1.4. Existing Air Quality Conditions – Ozone
        • 4.1.5. Existing Air Quality Conditions – Visibility
        • 4.1.6. Existing Emissions
      • 4.2. Existing Emissions from Trans Mountain Assets
        • 4.2.1. Primary Emissions of CACs and VOCs
        • 4.2.2. Greenhouse Gases
      • 4.3. Model Results – Existing Case
        • 4.3.1. CACs and VOCs
        • 4.3.2. Secondary Smog-Related Products
        • 4.3.3. Odour
        • 4.3.4. Pump Stations
      • Figure 4.1: Seasonal Temperature from Edmonton International Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.2: Precipitation Regime from Edmonton International Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.3: Wind Rose for Edmonton International Airport, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.4: Seasonal Temperature from Stony Plain Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.5: Precipitation Regime from Stony Plain Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.6: Wind Rose for Stony Plain, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.7: Seasonal Temperature from Edson Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.8: Precipitation Regime from Edson Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.9: Wind Rose for Edson Airport, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.10: Seasonal Temperature from Jasper East Gate Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.11: Precipitation Regime from Jasper East Gate Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.12: Wind Rose for Hinton, 2004 to 2011
      • Figure 4.13: Seasonal Temperature from Jasper Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.14: Precipitation Regime from Jasper Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.15: Wind Rose for Jasper Warden, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.16: Seasonal Temperature from Blue River Airport Climate Normals, 2002 to 2010
      • Figure 4.17: Precipitation Regime from Blue River Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.18: Wind Rose for Blue River Airport, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.19: Seasonal Temperature from Kamloops Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.20: Precipitation Regime from Kamloops Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.21: Wind Rose for Kamloops Airport, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.22: Seasonal Temperature from Hope Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.23: Precipitation Regime from Hope Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.24: Wind Rose for Hope Airport, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.25: Seasonal Temperature from Abbotsford Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.26: Precipitation Regime from Abbotsford Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.27: Wind Rose for Abbotsford Airport, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.28: Seasonal Temperature from Pitt Meadows STP Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.29: Precipitation Regime from Pitt Meadows STP Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.30: Wind Rose for Pitt Meadows STP, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.31: Seasonal Temperature from Vancouver International Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.32: Precipitation Regime from Vancouver International Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Figure 4.33: Wind Rose for Vancouver International Airport, 2002 to 2011
      • Figure 4.34: Annual Time Series for Ambient PM10 Concentrations (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.35: Annual Time Series for Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.36: Annual Time Series for Ambient CO Concentrations (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.37: Annual Time Series for Ambient NO2 Concentration (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.38: Observed PM10 Concentrations in 2011 for a) Alberta, b) British Columbia, outside Metro Vancouver, and c) Metro Vancouver (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.39: Observed PM2.5 Concentrations in 2011 for a) Alberta, b) British Columbia, outside Metro Vancouver, and c) Metro Vancouver (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.40: Observed CO Concentrations in 2011 for a) Alberta, b) British Columbia, outside Metro Vancouver, and c) Metro Vancouver (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.41: Observed NO2 Concentrations in 2011 for a) Alberta, b) British Columbia, outside Metro Vancouver, and c) Metro Vancouver (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.42: Observed SO2 Concentrations in 2011 for a) Alberta, b) British Columbia, outside Metro Vancouver, and c) Metro Vancouver (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.43: Observed BTEX Concentrations at Edmonton East (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.44: Observed BTEX Concentrations at Edmonton Central (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.45: Observed BTEX Concentrations at Hope Airport (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.46: Observed BTEX Concentrations at Chilliwack Airport (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.47: Observed BTEX Concentrations at Abbotsford Airport (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.48: Observed BTEX Concentrations at Burmount (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.49: Observed TRS Concentrations in 2011 Along the Pipeline Corridor (in µg/m³)
      • Figure 4.50: Annual Time Series for Ambient Ozone Concentrations (in ppb)
      • Figure 4.51: Observed Average Ozone Concentrations in 2011 for a) Alberta, b) British Columbia, outside Metro Vancouver, and c) Metro Vancouver (in ppb)
      • Figure 4.52 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour (9th highest) Benzene Concentration Including Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 4.53 Predicted Maximum Annual Benzene Concentration Including Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 4.54 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour (9th highest) Xylenes Concentration Including Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 4.55 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour Xylenes Concentration Including Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 4.56 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour (9th highest) H2S ConcentrationIncluding Ambient Back ground for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 4.57 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour H2S Concentration Including Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 4.58 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour PM10 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.59 Predicted Maximum Annual PM10 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.60 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.61 Predicted Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.62 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.63 Predicted Maximum Annual NO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.64 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour SO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.65 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour SO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.66 Predicted Maximum Annual SO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby andWestridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 4.67 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour Benz ene Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Table 4.1: Monthly Relative Humidity from Edmonton International Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.2: Monthly Relative Humidity from Edson Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.3 Monthly Relative Humidity from Jasper Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.4: Monthly Relative Humidity from Blue River Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.5: Monthly Relative Humidity from Kamloops Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.6: Monthly Relative Humidity from Hope Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.7: Monthly Relative Humidity from Abbotsford Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.8: Monthly Relative Humidity from Vancouver International Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.9 Frequency Of Observed PM10 Concentrations Exceeding Ambient Objectives In 2011 (in µg/m³)
      • Table 4.10: Frequency of Observed PM2.5 Concentrations Exceeding Objectives In 2011 (in µg/m³)
      • Table 4.11: Frequency of Observed Ozone Concentrations Exceeding Ambient Objectives In 2011 (in ppb)
      • Table 4.12: Monthly Visibility Observations from Edmonton International Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.13: Monthly Visibility Observations from Edson Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.14: Monthly Visibility Observations from Kamloops Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.15: Monthly Visibility Observations from Abbotsford Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.16: Monthly Visibility Observations from Vancouver International Airport Climate Normals, 1971 to 2000
      • Table 4.17: Existing CAC and VOC Emissions in the Edmonton Terminal LSA (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.18: Existing CAC and VOC Emissions in the Edmonton Terminal RSA (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.19: Existing CAC and VOC Emissions in the Kamloops Terminal LSA (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.20: Existing CAC and VOC Emissions in the Kamloops Terminal RSA (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.21: Existing CAC and VOC Emissions in the Sumas Terminal LSA (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.22: Existing CAC and VOC Emissions in the Sumas Terminal RSA (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.23: Existing CAC and VOC Emissions in Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals LSA (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.24: Existing CAC and VOC Emissions in Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals RSA (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.25: Annual Emissions from Edmonton Terminal – Existing Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.26: Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Edmonton Terminal – Existing Conditions (in g/s)
      • Table 4.27: Annual Emissions from Kamloops Terminal – Existing Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.28: Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Kamloops Terminal – Existing Conditions (in g/s)
      • Table 4.29: Annual Emissions from Sumas Terminal – Existing Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.30: Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Sumas Terminal – Existing Conditions (in g/s)
      • Table 4.31: Annual Emissions from Burnaby Terminal – Existing Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.32: Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Burnaby Terminal – Existing Conditions (in g/s)
      • Table 4.33: Annual Emissions from Westridge Marine Terminal – Existing Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 4.34 Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Westridge Marine Terminal – Existing Conditions (in g/s)
      • Table 4.35: Annual GHG Emissions Associated with Pipeline Segments (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 4.38: Total Annual Emissions from Existing Trans Mountain Assets and Comparison to National, Provincial, and LFV Emissios (in annual tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 4.45: Maximum Predicted H2S and Total Mercaptans of Existing Conditions at the Four Terminals (in µg/m³).
      • Table 4.46: Select Speciated VOCs and Total Mercaptans With Their Respective Odour Detection Threshold and Modelled 3-minute Maximum Concentrations Expressed as a Percentage of Their Respective Odour Thresholds (in µg/m³). 
    • 5. RESULTS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – AIR QUALITY
      • 5.1. Emission Estimates – Project Construction
        • 5.1.1. CAC and VOC Emissions from Construction of Pipeline Segments
        • 5.1.2. CAC and VOC Emissions from Construction of Pump Stations
        • 5.1.3. CAC and VOC Emissions from Tank Installation
        • 5.1.4. CAC and VOC Emissions from Expansion of Westridge Marine Terminal
      • 5.2. Emission Estimates – Project Operation
        • 5.2.1. Edmonton Terminal
        • 5.2.2. Kamloops Terminal
        • 5.2.3. Sumas Terminal
        • 5.2.4. Burnaby Terminal
        • 5.2.5. Westridge Marine Terminal
      • 5.3. Model Results – Application Case
        • 5.3.1. CACs and VOCs
        • 5.3.2. Secondary Smog-Related Products
        • 5.3.3. Odour
        • 5.3.4. Pump Stations
      • Figure 5.1 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour (9th highest) Benzene Concentration Including Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 5.2 Predicted Maximum Annual Benzene Concentration IncludingAmbient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 5.3 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour (9th highest) Xylenes Concentration Including Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 5.4 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour Xylenes Concentration Including Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 5.5 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour (9th highest) H2S ConcentrationIncluding Ambient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 5.6 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour H2S Concentration IncludingAmbient Background for Edmonton Terminal
      • Figure 5.7 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour PM10 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby andWestridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.8 Predicted Maximum Annual PM10 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby andWestridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.9 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby andWestridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.10 Predicted Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby andWestridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.11 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.12 Predicted Maximum Annual NO2 Concentration Including Ambient Back ground and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.13 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour SO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.14 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour SO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.15 Predicted Maximum Annual SO2 Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Figure 5.16 Predicted Maximum 1-Hour Benzene Concentration Including Ambient Background and All Marine Transportation for the Burnaby and Westridge Marine Terminals
      • Table 5.1 Overall CAC and VOC Emissions Associated with the Construction of Pipeline Segments (in kg)
      • Table 5.2: Overall CAC and VOC Emissions Associated with the Construction of Pump Stations (in kg)
      • Table 5.3: Overall CAC and VOC Emissions Associated with Tank Installation (in kg)
      • Table 5.4: Overall CAC and VOC Emissions During the Construction Phase of the Expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal (in kg)
      • Table 5.5: Annual Emissions from Edmonton Terminal – Project Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 5.7: Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Edmonton Terminal – Project Conditions (in g/s)
      • Table 5.8: Annual Emissions from Kamloops Terminal – Project Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 5.10: Annual Emissions from Sumas Terminal – Project Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 5.12: Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Sumas Terminal – Project Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 5.13: Annual Emissions from Burnaby Terminal – Project Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 5.15: Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Burnaby Terminal – Project Conditions (in g/s)
      • Table 5.16: Annual Emissions from Westridge Marine Terminal – Project Conditions (in tonnes/y)
      • Table 5.18: Maximum Hourly Emissions for Modelling at Westridge Marine Terminal – Project Conditions (in g/s)
      • Table 5.23: 9th Highest Modelled H2S and Total Mercaptans Concentrations at Edmonton Terminal for the Application and the Project Only Cases (in µg/m³)
      • Table 5.24: Maximum Modelled H2S and Total Mercaptan Concentrations at the BC Terminals for the Application and for the Projec Only Cases (in µg/m³)
      • Table 5.26: Selected Speciated VOCs and Total Mercaptans with Their Respective Odour Detection Threshold and Predicted Maximum 3-minute Concentrations for the Project Only Case Expressed as a Percentage of Their Respective Odour Thresholds (in µg/m³)
    • 6. RESULTS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – GREENHOUSE GASES
      • 6.1. Emission Estimates – Project Construction
        • 6.1.1. GHG Emissions from Construction of Pipeline Segments
        • 6.1.2. GHG Emissions from Construction of Pump Stations
        • 6.1.3. GHG Emissions from Tank Installation
        • 6.1.4. GHG Emissions from Expansion of Westridge Marine Terminal
      • 6.2. GHG Emission Estimates – Project Operations
        • 6.2.1. GHG Emissions from Operations of New and Reactivated Pipeline Segments
        • 6.2.2. GHG Emissions from Operations of Pump Stations
        • 6.2.3. GHG Emissions from Operations of the Installed Tanks
        • 6.2.4. GHG Emissions from Expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal – Operations
      • 6.3. Comparison of the Project Emissions to National and Provincial Totals
      • 6.4. Project Effect on Climate Change
      • Table 6.1: Overall GHG Emissions Associated with the Construction of Pipeline Segments (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 6.2: Overall GHG Emissions Associated with the Construction of Pump Stations (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 6.3: Overall GHG Emissions Associated with Tank Installation (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 6.4: Overall GHG Emissions during the construction phase of the Expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 6.5: Annual Project GHG Emissions Associated with the Operations of the Pump Stations (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 6.7: Annual Project GHG Emissions Associated with the Operations of the Westridge Marine Terminal (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 6.8: Comparison of Project Operations GHG Emissions to the National and Provincial Emissions (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 6.9: Effect of the Project on Overall Climate Change
    • 7. RESULTS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – AIR QUALITY
      • 7.1. CACs and VOCs
      • 7.2. Secondary Smog-Related Products
      • 7.3. Odour
      • 7.4. Pump Stations
      • Figure 7.1: Proposed Industrial Facilities in Kamloops Air RSA
    • 8. RESULTS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT – GREENHOUSE GASES
      • 8.1. Emission Estimates – Application Case
      • 8.2. Project Effect on Climate Change
      • Table 8.1: Annual GHG Emissions Associated with the Future Operations of Trans Mountain Assets (in tonnes CO2e)
      • Table 8.2: Effect of the Project on Overall Climate Change (in %)
    • 9. SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES, MITIGATION, AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 9.1. Pipeline
        • 9.1.1. Supplemental Studies
        • 9.1.2. General Mitigation Recommendations
        • 9.1.3. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring
      • 9.2. Pump Stations
        • 9.2.1. Supplemental Studies
        • 9.2.2. General Mitigation Recommendations
        • 9.2.3. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring
      • 9.3. Tanks
        • 9.3.1. Supplemental Studies
        • 9.3.2. General Mitigation Recommendations
        • 9.3.3. Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 9.4. Westridge Marine Terminal
        • 9.4.1. Supplemental Studies
        • 9.4.2. General Mitigation Recommendations
        • 9.4.3. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring
      • Table 9.4 Potential Effects and Recommended Mitigative Measures – Westridge Marine Terminal Expansion
    • 10. REFERENCES
      • 10.1. Personal Communications
      • 10.2. Literature Cited
    • Appendix A
    • Appendix B
    • Appendix C
    • Appendix D
    • Appendix E
    • Appendix F
  • V5C_TR_5C5_GROUNDWATER
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Objectives
      • 1.3 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.3.1 Federal Standards
        • 1.3.2 Provincial Standards in Alberta
        • 1.3.3 Provincial Standards in British Columbia
        • 1.3.4 Land Use and Management Plans in Alberta
        • 1.3.5 Land Use and Management Plans in British Columbia
      • Figure 1.1 Project Overview: Alberta and British Columbia Trans Mountain Expansion Project
      • TABLE 1.3-1LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT PLANS IN ALBERTA WITH MENTION OF GROUNDWATER
      • TABLE 1.3-2LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT PLANS INBRITISH COLUMBIA WITH MENTION OF GROUNDWATER
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
      • TABLE 2.2-1SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIESRELATED TO GROUNDWATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
      • 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
      • 3.3 Study Area Boundaries
      • 3.4 Existing Conditions
      • 3.5 Literature/Desktop Review
      • 3.6 Field Data Collection
      • TABLE 3.2-1ASSESSMENT INDICATORS AND MEASUREMENTENDPOINTS FOR GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
      • TABLE 3.6-1COLLECTED FIELD DATA
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW AND FIELD DATA COLLECTION
      • 4.1 General Information
        • 4.1.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.1.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.1.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.1.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.1.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 4.1.6 Edmonton Terminal
        • 4.1.7 Gainford Pump Station
        • 4.1.8 Wolf Pump Station
        • 4.1.9 Edson Pump Station
        • 4.1.10 Hinton Pump Station
        • 4.1.11 Jasper Pump Station
        • 4.1.12 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 4.1.13 Blue River Pump Station
        • 4.1.14 Blackpool Pump Station
        • 4.1.15 Darfield Pump Station
        • 4.1.16 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 4.1.17 Kamloops Pump Station
        • 4.1.18 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 4.1.19 Sumas Pump Station
        • 4.1.20 Sumas Terminal
        • 4.1.21 Burnaby Terminal
        • 4.1.22 Westridge Marine Terminal
      • 4.2 Groundwater Quantity
        • 4.2.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.2.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.2.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.2.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.2.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 4.2.6 Facilities and Terminals
      • 4.3 Groundwater Quality
        • 4.3.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.3.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.3.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.3.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.3.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 4.3.6 Facilities and Terminals
      • TABLE 4.1-1POTENTIAL MITIGATION OF GROUNDWATER-RELATED ISSUES
      • TABLE 4.1-2POSSIBLE AQUIFERS IN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.1-3POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER-RELATED ISSUES IN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.1-4POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER-RELATED ISSUES IN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.1-5POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER-RELATED ISSUES IN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.1-6SURFICIAL GEOLOGY RK 1079.4 TO RK 1085.9
      • TABLE 4.1-7SURFICIAL GEOLOGY FROM RK 1121.1 TO RK 1138.2
      • TABLE 4.1-8SURFICIAL GEOLOGY FROM RK 1138.2 TO RK 1168.6
      • TABLE 4.1-9SURFICIAL GEOLOGY FROM RK 1169.2 TO RK 1179.77 
      • TABLE 4.1-10AQUIFERS IDENTIFIED BETWEEN ABBOTSFORD AND SURREY, BC 
      • TABLE 4.1-11POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER-RELATED ISSUES IN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.1-12SURFICIAL GEOLOGY FROM RK 0 TO RK 3.6
    • 5.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 5.1 Pipeline
        • 5.1.1 Potential Effects
        • 5.1.2 Supplemental Studies
        • 5.1.3 General Recommendations
        • 5.1.4 Pre-Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 5.2 Pump Stations and Terminals
        • 5.2.1 Potential Effects
        • 5.2.2 Supplemental Studies
        • 5.2.3 Pre-Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 5.3 Westridge Marine Terminal
        • 5.3.1 Potential Effects
        • 5.3.2 Supplemental Studies
        • 5.3.3 Pre-Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring
      • TABLE 5.1-1POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ON GROUNDWATER INDICATORS
      • TABLE 5.2-1POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AT PUMP STATION AND TANK FACILITIES ON WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
      • TABLE 5.3-1POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION AT THE WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL ON WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
    • 6.0 SUMMARY
    • 7.0 REFERENCES
      • 7.1 Personal Communications
      • 7.2 Literature Cited
      • 7.3 Figure and Mapping References
      • 7.4 Land Use and Management Plan References
    • APPENDIX AMAPS
    • APPENDIX BTABLES
      • TABLE B.1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER-RELATED CONCERNS
    • Technical_Rep_Groundwater_LowRes_Maps.pdf
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__001
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__002
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__003
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__004
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__005
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__006
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__007
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__008
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__009
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__010
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__011
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__012
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__013
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__014
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__015
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__016
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__017
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__018
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__019
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__020
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__021
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__022
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__023
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__024
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__025
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__026
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__027
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__028
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__029
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__030
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__031
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__032
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__033
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__034
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__035
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__036
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__037
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__038
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__039
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__040
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__041
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__042
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__043
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__044
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__045
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__046
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__047
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__048
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__049
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__050
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__051
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__052
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__053
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__054
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__055
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__056
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__057
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__058
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__059
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__060
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__061
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__062
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__063
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__064
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__065
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__066
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__067
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__068
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__069
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__070
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__071
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__072
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__073
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__074
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__075
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__076
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__077
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__078
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__079
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__080
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__081
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__082
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__083
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__084
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__085
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__086
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__087
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__088
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__089
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__090
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__091
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__092
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__093
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__094
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__095
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__096
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__097
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__098
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__099
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__100
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__101
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__102
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__103
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__104
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__105
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__106
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__107
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__108
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__109
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__110
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__111
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__112
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__113
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__114
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__115
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__116
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__117
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__118
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__119
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__120
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__121
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__122
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__123
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__124
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__125
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__126
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__127
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__128
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__129
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__130
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__131
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__132
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__133
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__134
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__135
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__136
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__137
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__138
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__139
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__140
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__141
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__142
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__143
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__144
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__145
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__146
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__147
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__148
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__149
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__150
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__151
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__152
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__153
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__154
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__155
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__156
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__157
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__158
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__159
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__160
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__161
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__162
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__163
      • TMEP_Waterline_LoRes_Sheet__164
  • V5C_TR_5C6_FISH_AB
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Fish and Fish Habitat Assessments
      • 1.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 1.4 Objectives
      • 1.5 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.5.1 Federal Standards
        • 1.5.2 Provincial Standards in Alberta
      • Figure 1.1 Project Overview – Trans Mountain Expansion Project
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
      • TABLE 2.1SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENTACTIVITIES RELATED TO FISH AND FISH HABITAT IN ALBERTA
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
      • 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
        • 3.2.1 Riparian Habitat
        • 3.2.2 Instream Habitat
        • 3.2.3 Fish Mortality or Injury
        • 3.2.4 Alberta Indicator Species
        • 3.2.5 Measurement Endpoints
        • 3.2.6 Species of Management Concern
      • 3.3 Study Area Boundaries
        • 3.3.1 Footprint Study Area
        • 3.3.2 Fish and Fish Habitat Local Study Area
        • 3.3.3 Fish and Fish Habitat Regional Study Area
      • 3.4 Baseline Conditions
      • 3.5 Fisheries Literature Review
        • 3.5.1 Watercourse Crossing Base List
        • 3.5.2 Review of Historical Fisheries Information
        • 3.5.3 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 3.6 Fisheries Field Program
        • 3.6.1 Permits and Conditions
        • 3.6.2 Field Crew Orientations
        • 3.6.3 Fisheries Field Data Collection
        • 3.6.4 Fish Habitat Crossing Classification
        • 3.6.5 Navigability Determination
        • 3.6.6 Data Management
        • 3.6.7 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • Figure 3.1 Example Typical Fish and Fish Habitat Local Study Area – Zeb-igler Creek
      • Figure 3.2 Example Extended Fish and Fish Habitat Local Study Area – Wolf Creek
      • Figure 3.3 Fish and Fish Habitat Regional Study Area
      • TABLE 3.1GENERAL STATUS RANK CATEGORIES AND THEIR DEFINITIONS
      • TABLE 3.2PROPOSED CROSSINGS ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHINTHE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT WITH HISTORICAL FISHERIES INFORMATION
      • TABLE 3.3SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION STANDARDS ATFISH HABITAT WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 3.4ABORIGINAL AQUATICS FIELD SURVEY PARTICIPATION FOR THE PROJECT IN ALBERTA
      • 3.7 Fish and Fish Habitat Sensitivity
      • TABLE 3.5RANKING CRITERIA FOR FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL
      • TABLE 3.6SENSITIVITY RANKING FOR FISH SPECIES AND HABITAT PRESENT
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW
      • 4.1 General Information
        • 4.1.1 Background
        • 4.1.2 Species of Management Concern
        • 4.1.3 Restricted Activity Periods
      • 4.2 Environmental Setting and Fish Species Distribution
        • 4.2.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.2.2 Background Information and Existing Land Uses
        • 4.2.3 Fish Species Distribution
        • 4.2.4 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 4.3 Indicator Fish Species
        • 4.3.1 General Water Quality and Habitat Requirements for Indicator Species
        • 4.3.2 Bull Trout
        • 4.3.3 Arctic Grayling
        • 4.3.4 Athabasca Rainbow Trout
        • 4.3.5 Northern Pike
        • 4.3.6 Walleye
        • 4.3.7 Burbot
      • 4.4 Additional Species of Management Concern
        • 4.4.1 Lake Sturgeon
        • 4.4.2 Sauger
        • 4.4.3 Spoonhead Sculpin
        • 4.4.4 Northern Redbelly Dace
        • 4.4.5 Brown Trout
        • 4.4.6 Brook Trout
        • 4.4.7 Rainbow Trout (Introduced Populations)
        • 4.4.8 Cutthroat Trout
        • 4.4.9 Mountain Whitefish
        • 4.4.10 Yellow Perch
        • 4.4.11 Mooneye
        • 4.4.12 Goldeye
      • TABLE 4.1PROJECT SUMMARY OF WATERSHED BOUNDARIES,NAMED WATERCOURSES, MUNICIPALITIES, CROSSING NUMBERS AND RK POSTS
      • TABLE 4.2SUMMARY OF STREAMFLOWS FROM HYDROLOGICALSTATIONS NEAR THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 4.3SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTEDWITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.4ZONE-SPECIFIC RESTRICTED ACTIVITY PERIOD TIMING FORFISH SPECIES IN THE FISH MANAGEMENT ZONES ENCOUNTERED BYTHE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.5CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIVE ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS ENCOUNTERED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 4.6NAMED NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS INTHE CITY OF EDMONTON NEAR THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 4.7FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITHPROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE LOWER NORTH SASKATCHEWAN WATERSHED
      • TABLE 4.8FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN PROPOSEDCROSSINGS WITHIN THE MIDDLE NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER WATERSHED
      • TABLE 4.9FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSESWITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE STURGEON RIVER WATERSHED
      • TABLE 4.10FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTEDIN WATERCOURSES WITH PROPOSED CROSSINGSWITHIN THE UPPER NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER WATERSHED
      • TABLE 4.11FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSESWITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE PEMBINA RIVER WATERSHED
      • TABLE 4.12FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITHPROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE LOWER MCLEOD RIVER WATERSHED
      • TABLE 4.13FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITHPROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE UPPER MCLEOD RIVER WATERSHED
      • TABLE 4.14FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSESWITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS IN THE ATHABASCA RIVER WATERSHED
      • TABLE 4.15RECOMMENDED DISSOLVED OXYGENCRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE
      • TABLE 4.16WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR BULL TROUT
      • TABLE 4.17PREVIOUS RECORDS OF BULL TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BYTHE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.18WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCTIC GRAYLING
      • TABLE 4.19PREVIOUS RECORDS OF ARCTIC GRAYLING WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSEDBY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.20WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATHABASCA RAINBOW TROUT
      • TABLE 4.21PREVIOUS RECORDS OF ATHABASCARAINBOW TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THEPROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.22WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR NORTHERN PIKE
      • TABLE 4.23PREVIOUS RECORDS OF NORTHERN PIKEOBSERVATIONS WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THEPROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.24WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR WALLEYE
      • TABLE 4.25PREVIOUS RECORDS OF WALLEYE WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSEDBY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.26WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR BURBOT
      • TABLE 4.27PREVIOUS RECORDS OF BURBOT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THEPROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.28PREVIOUS RECORDS OF LAKE STURGEON WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BYTHE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.29PREVIOUS RECORDS OF SAUGER WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THEPROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.30PREVIOUS RECORDS OF SPOONHEAD SCULPIN WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSEDBY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.31PREVIOUS RECORDS OF NORTHERN REDBELLY DACEWITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.32PREVIOUS RECORDS OF BROWN TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BYTHE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.33PREVIOUS RECORDS OF BROOK TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BYTHE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.34PREVIOUS RECORDS OF RAINBOW TROUT(INTRODUCED POPULATIONS) WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THEPROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.35PREVIOUS RECORDS OF CUTTHROAT TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSEDBY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.36PREVIOUS RECORDS OF MOUNTAIN WHITEFISHWITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.37PREVIOUS RECORDS OF YELLOW PERCH WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BYTHE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.38PREVIOUS RECORDS OF MOONEYEWITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THEPROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.39PREVIOUS RECORDS OF GOLDEYE WITHINWATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
    • 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION
      • 5.1 General Information
      • 5.2 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 5.2.1 Summary of Watercourse Classifications
        • 5.2.2 Fish-Bearing versus Nonfish- Bearing Habitat
        • 5.2.3 Sensitivity Ranking of Fish-Bearing Watercourses
        • 5.2.4 Fall 2012 Spawning Assessments
        • 5.2.5 2013 Wintering Habitat Potential Survey
        • 5.2.6 Fall 2013 Spawning Assessments
        • 5.2.7 Indicator Species
        • 5.2.8 Other Species of Management Concern
        • 5.2.9 Navigable Watercourses
        • 5.2.10 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • Figure 5.1 Proposed Crossings of Fish-Bearing Habitat
      • Figure 5.2 Proposed Crossings of Nonfish-Bearing Habitat
      • Figure 5.3 Distribution of Fish Observed in the McLeod River Downstream from the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor, Sep ember 18, 2012
      • Figure 5.4 Distribution of Fish Observed in Hardisty Creek in the Vicinity of the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor, September 24, 2013
      • Figure 5.5 Distribution of Fish Observed in Sundance Creek Downstream of the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor, September 25, 2013
      • TABLE 5.1CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE 202 POTENTIAL CROSSINGS OF THEPROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.2SENSITIVITY RANKING FOR CROSSINGS OFFISH-BEARING HABITAT ALONG THE PROPOSEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES OF FISH SPECIES OBSERVED DURINGTHE SNORKEL SURVEY OF THE PEMBINA RIVER - SEPTEMBER 17, 2012
      • TABLE 5.4COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES OF FISH SPECIES OBSERVEDDURING THE SNORKEL SURVEY OF WOLF CREEK - SEPTEMBER 17, 2012
      • TABLE 5.5COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES OF FISH SPECIES OBSERVED DURINGTHE SNORKEL SURVEY OF MASKUTA CREEK - SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
      • TABLE 5.6INDICATOR SPECIES CAPTURED OR OBSERVED ATPOTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS OF THE PROPOSEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.7OTHER SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN CAPTURED OROBSERVED AT POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS OF THEPROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.8NAVIGABILITY DETERMINATIONS OF THE PROPOSED CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED
      • TABLE 5.9FISHERIES-RELATED TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE RECORDED ALONGTHE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
    • 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 6.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 6.1.1 Recommended Pipeline Crossings Methods
        • 6.1.2 Fish-Bearing Watercourses, Wetlands and Non-Classified Drainages
        • 6.1.3 Nonfish-Bearing Watercourses
        • 6.1.4 Proposed Crossings Requiring Realignment
        • 6.1.5 Beaver Dam Removals
        • 6.1.6 Contingency Pipeline Crossings Methods
        • 6.1.7 Recommended Crossing Methods for Nonfish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages and Nonfish-Bearing Wetlands
        • 6.1.8 Recommended Temporary Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods
        • 6.1.9 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
        • 6.1.10 Supplemental Studies
      • TABLE 6.1LOCATION OF POTENTIAL SUPPLEMENTALFISH AND FISH HABITAT SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED WITHINTHE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OF THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
    • 7.0 MITIGATION AND RECLAMATION
      • 7.1 Pipeline Construction and Operation
        • 7.1.1 Pathways of Effects
        • 7.1.2 Best Management Practices
        • 7.1.3 Recommended General Mitigation Measures
        • 7.1.4 Watercourse Reclamation Strategy
        • 7.1.5 Post-Construction Monitoring
      • TABLE 7.1POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES OFPIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION FOR THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 7.2WATERCOURSE RECLAMATION MEASURES
    • 8.0 SUMMARY
    • 9.0 REFERENCES
      • 9.1 Personal Communications
      • 9.2 Literature Cited
      • 9.3 GIS Data and Mapping References
    • APPENDIX AWATERCOURSE CROSSING SUMMARY TABLE
    • APPENDIX BGRAPHICAL DATA FROMHYDROLOGICAL STATIONS NEARSELECT WATERCOURSES ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
    • APPENDIX CFISH-BEARING ATLAS
    • APPENDIX DNONFISH-BEARING ATLAS
    • APPENDIX ESTANDARDIZED DRAWINGS FOR RECLAMATION MEASURES
      • Drawing 1 Shrub Staking and Transplanting
      • Drawing 2 Streambank Protection – Typical Coir Logs
      • Drawing 3 Streambank Protection – Typical Hedge/Brush Layering
      • Drawing 4 Streambank Protection – Cribwalls
      • Drawing 5 Streambank Protection – Cobble or RipRap Armouring
  • V5C_TR_5C7_FISH_BC
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Fish and Fish Habitat Assessments
      • 1.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 1.4 Objectives
      • 1.5 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.5.1 Federal Standards
        • 1.5.2 Provincial Standards in British Columbia
      • Figure 3.1 Project Overview - Trans Mountain Expansion Project
      • TABLE 1.1SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION STANDARDS
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
      • TABLE 2.1SUMMARY OF REGULATORY CONSULTATION ACTIVITIESRELATED TO FISH AND FISH HABITAT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Study Area Boundaries and Project Footprint
        • 3.1.1 Study Area Boundaries
        • 3.1.2 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
        • 3.1.3 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
        • 3.1.4 Existing Conditions
      • 3.2 Field Data Collection
        • 3.2.1 Watercourse Crossing Database
        • 3.2.2 Review of Historical Fish and Fish Habitat Related Information
        • 3.2.3 Permits and Conditions
        • 3.2.4 Field Crew Orientations
        • 3.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat Data Collection
        • 3.2.6 Stream Classification
        • 3.2.7 Fish Habitat Assessments
        • 3.2.8 Fish Sampling
        • 3.2.9 Data Management
      • 3.3 Navigability
      • 3.4 Fish and Fish Habitat Sensitivity
      • 3.5 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
        • 3.5.1 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
        • 3.5.2 Field Reconnaissance
        • 3.5.3 Results Review/Reporting
      • Figure 3.1 Typical Local Study Area
      • Figure 3.2 Large Local Study Area
      • Figure 3.3 Typical Regional Study Area
      • TABLE 3.1NAMED WATERCOURSE CROSSING HISTORICAL INFORMATION
      • TABLE 3.2SUMMARY OF FEDERAL FISH COLLECTION PERMITS
      • TABLE 3.3 SUMMARY OF PROVINCIAL FISH COLLECTION PERMITS
      • TABLE 3.4BRITISH COLUMBIA STREAM CLASSIFICATION CODES RESPECTIVE MEAN CHANNEL WIDTH AND FISH-BEARING STATUS
      • TABLE 3.5RANKING CRITERIA FOR FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL
      • TABLE 3.6SENSITIVITY RANKING FOR SPECIES AND HABITAT PRESENT
      • TABLE 3.7ABORIGINAL AQUATICS FIELD SURVEY PARTICIPATION FOR THE PROJECT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW
      • 4.1 General Information
        • 4.1.1 Background
        • 4.1.2 Community Watersheds
        • 4.1.3 Fish Species of Concern
        • 4.1.4 Windows of Least Risk
      • 4.2 Environmental Setting and Fish Species Distribution
        • 4.2.1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
        • 4.2.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment (RK 489.6 to RK 769.0)
        • 4.2.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment (RK 811.8 to RK 1043.7)
        • 4.2.4 Black Pines Power Line
        • 4.2.5 Kingsvale Power Line
        • 4.2.6 Hope to Burnaby Segment (RK 1043.7 to RK 1179.5)
        • 4.2.7 Burnaby Terminal (RK 1179.5)
        • 4.2.8 Burnaby to Westridge Segment (RK 1179.8 to RK 1182.5)
      • 4.3 Indicator Fish Species
        • 4.3.1 General Water Quality and Habitat Requirements for Indicator Species
        • 4.3.2 Chinook Salmon
        • 4.3.3 Coho Salmon
        • 4.3.4 Bull Trout and Dolly Varden
        • 4.3.5 Rainbow Trout/Steelhead
        • 4.3.6 Coastal Cutthroat Trout/Westslope Cutthroat Trout
      • 4.4 Federally-Listed Species (Schedule 1 of Species at Risk Act)
        • 4.4.1 White Sturgeon
        • 4.4.2 Green Sturgeon
        • 4.4.3 Salish Sucker
        • 4.4.4 Nooksack Dace
      • 4.5 Provincially-Listed Species or Committee for the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
        • 4.5.1 Mountain Sucker
        • 4.5.2 Eulachon
        • 4.5.3 Chiselmouth
        • 4.5.4 Sockeye Salmon (Cultus Population)
      • Figure 4.1 Timing Windows for Fish Species of Management Concern within the Omineca Region (Region 7 - Fraser and Columbia Drainages)
      • Figure 4.2 Timing Windows for Fish Species of Management Concern within the Thompson-Nicola Region (Region 3 – North Thompson, Thompson, South Thompson, Nicola and Coldwater Drainages)
      • Figure 4.3 Specific Watercourse Timing Windows within the Thompson-Nicola Region (Region 3)
      • Figure 4.4 Timing Windows for Fish Species of Management Concern within the Lower Mainland Region (Region 2 – Coquihalla, Chilliwack and Fraser Drainages)
      • TABLE 4.1MAJOR WATERSHEDS AND RIVERS ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 4.2HYDROLOGICAL STATIONS AT IMPORTANT FISH-BEARING WATERCOURSES CROSSED OR ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 4.3DESIGNATED COMMUNITY WATERSHEDS ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 4.4FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES (SCHEDULE 1 OF SARA)
      • TABLE 4.5PROVINCIALLY-LISTED SPECIES AND/OR COSEWIC SPECIES
      • TABLE 4.6FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE UPPER FRASER RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.7FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN CANOE RIVER AND CAMP CREEK, HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.8FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE UPPER NORTH THOMPSON RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.9FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE LOWER NORTH THOMPSON RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.10FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE CLEARWATER RIVER
      • TABLE 4.11FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE LOWER NORTH THOMPSON RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.12FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE THOMPSON RIVER, BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.13FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE SOUTH THOMPSON RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.14FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE NICOLA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.15FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE COLDWATER RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
      • TABLE 4.16DOCUMENTED FISH BARRIERS IN BOSTON BAR CREEK
      • TABLE 4.17FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE COQUIHALLA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.18FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN VOGHT CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
      • TABLE 4.19FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE LOWER FRASER RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.20FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN THE CHILLIWACK/VEDDER RIVER WATERSHED, HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.21FISH SPECIES RECORDED PREVIOUSLY IN EAGLE CREEK
      • TABLE 4.22RECOMMENDED DISSOLVED OXYGEN CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE
      • TABLE 4.23WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR CHINOOK SALMON
      • TABLE 4.24KNOWN CHINOOK-BEARING WATERCOURSES WITHIN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.25KNOWN CHINOOK-BEARING WATERCOURSES WITHIN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.26KNOWN CHINOOK-BEARING WATERCOURSES WITHIN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.27WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR COHO SALMON
      • TABLE 4.28KNOWN COHO-BEARING WATERCOURSES WITHIN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.29KNOWN COHO-BEARING WATERCOURSES WITHIN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.30KNOWN COHO-BEARING WATERCOURSES WITHIN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.31WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR BULL TROUT/DOLLY VARDEN
      • TABLE 4.32KNOWN BULL TROUT HABITAT WITHIN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.33KNOWN BULL TROUT/DOLLY VARDEN HABITAT WITHIN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.34KNOWN BULL TROUT/DOLLY VARDEN HABITAT WITHIN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.35WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR RAINBOW TROUT/STEELHEAD
      • TABLE 4.36KNOWN RAINBOW TROUT HABITAT WITHIN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.37KNOWN RAINBOWTROUT/STEELHEAD HABITAT WITHIN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.38KNOWN RAINBOW TROUT/STEELHEAD HABITAT WITHIN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.39WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR CUTTHROAT TROUT (COASTAL AND WESTSLOPE)
      • TABLE 4.40KNOWN CUTTHROAT TROUT HABITAT WITHIN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.41KNOWN CUTTHROAT TROUT HABITAT WITHIN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.42PREVIOUS RECORDS OF WHITE STURGEON IN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.43PREVIOUS SALISH SUCKER RECORDS IN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.44PREVIOUS NOOKSACK DACE RECORDS IN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.45PREVIOUS SOCKEYE RECORDS IN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.46PREVIOUS SOCKEYE RECORDS IN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.47PREVIOUS SOCKEYE RECORDS IN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
    • 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION
      • 5.1 General Information
      • 5.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 5.2.1 Watercourse Crossings
        • 5.2.2 Indicator Species
        • 5.2.3 Species at Risk
        • 5.2.4 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Waters
        • 5.2.5 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 5.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 5.3.1 Watercourse Crossings
        • 5.3.2 Indicator Species
        • 5.3.3 Species at Risk
        • 5.3.4 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Waters
        • 5.3.5 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 5.4 Black Pines Power Line
        • 5.4.1 Watercourse Crossings
        • 5.4.2 Indicator Species
        • 5.4.3 Species at Risk
        • 5.4.4 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Waters
      • 5.5 Kingsvale Power Line
        • 5.5.1 Watercourse Crossings
        • 5.5.2 Indicator Species
        • 5.5.3 Species at Risk
        • 5.5.4 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Waters
      • 5.6 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 5.6.1 Watercourse Crossings
        • 5.6.2 Indicator Species
        • 5.6.3 Species at Risk
        • 5.6.4 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Waters
        • 5.6.5 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 5.7 Burnaby Terminal
        • 5.7.1 Watercourse Crossings
      • 5.8 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 5.8.1 Watercourse Crossings
      • Figure 5.1 Fish-Bearing Status of Watercourse Crossings, Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
      • Figure 5.2 Fish-Bearing Status of Watercourse Crossings, Black Pines to Hope Segment
      • Figure 5.3 Fish-Bearing Status of Watercourse Crossings, Black Pines Power Line
      • Figure 5.4 Fish-Bearing Status of Watercourses, Kingsvale Power Line
      • Figure 5.5 Fish-Bearing Status of Watercourse Crossings, Hope to Burnaby Segment
      • TABLE 5.1STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS OF WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.2SENSITIVITY RANKING OF FISH-BEARING WATERCOURSES IN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3INDICATOR SPECIES CAPTURED OR OBSERVED AT WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS WITHIN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT (2006; 2012 to 2013)
      • TABLE 5.4NAVIGATION CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.5AQUATICS TEK RECORDED ALONG THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.6STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.7SENSITIVITY RANKING OF FISH-BEARING WATERCOURSES IN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.8NONFISH-BEARING WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS UPSTREAM FROM UPPER FALLS ON BOSTON BAR CREEK
      • TABLE 5.9INDICATOR SPECIES CAPTURED OR OBSERVED AT WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS WITHIN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT (2012 TO 2013)⤀
      • TABLE 5.10NAVIGATION CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.11AQUATICS TEK RECORDED ALONG THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.12STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE PROPOSED BLACK PINES POWER LINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.13SENSITIVITY RANKING OF FISH-BEARING WATERCOURSES
      • TABLE 5.14 INDICATOR SPECIES CAPTURED OR OBSERVED AT WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS IN THE BLACK PINES POWER LINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.15NAVIGATION CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE POTENTIALWATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE BLACKPINES POWER LINE
      • TABLE 5.16STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE KINGSVALE POWER LINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.17SENSITIVITY RANKING OF FISH-BEARING WATERCOURSES IN THE KINSGVALE POWER LINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.18INDICATOR SPECIES CAPTURED OR OBSERVED AT WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS WITHIN THE KINGSVALE POWER LINE (2012 to 2013)
      • TABLE 5.19NAVIGATION CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE KINGSVALE POWER LINE
      • TABLE 5.20STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE BURNABY TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.21SENSITIVITY RANKING OF FISH-BEARING WATERCOURSES
      • TABLE 5.22INDICATOR SPECIES CAPTURED OR OBSERVED AT WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS WITHIN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT (2012 to 2013)
      • TABLE 5.23NAVIGATION CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED IN THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.24AQUATIC TEK RECORDED ALONG THE PROPOSED HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
    • 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 6.1 General Recommendations
        • 6.1.1 Pipeline Crossings Methods
        • 6.1.2 Fish-Bearing Watercourses or Wetlands
        • 6.1.3 Nonfish-Bearing Watercourses or Wetlands
        • 6.1.4 Beaver Dam Removal
        • 6.1.5 Contingency Pipeline Crossings of Large Rivers
        • 6.1.6 Recommended Temporary Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods
        • 6.1.7 Recommended Pipeline and Vehicle Crossing Methods for Non-Classified Drainages and Isolated Ponds
      • 6.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 6.2.1 Summary of Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods
        • 6.2.2 Summary of Recommended Vehicle Crossing Methods
      • 6.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 6.3.1 Summary of Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods
        • 6.3.2 Summary of Recommended Vehicle Crossing Methods
      • 6.4 Black Pines Power Line
      • 6.5 Kingsvale Power Line
      • 6.6 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 6.6.1 Summary of Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods
        • 6.6.2 Summary of Recommended Vehicle Crossing Methods
      • 6.7 Burnaby Terminal
      • 6.8 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
      • 6.9 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 6.10 Supplemental Studies
      • TABLE 6.1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PIPELINE CROSSING METHODS ALONG THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 6.2SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CROSSING METHODS FOR THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 6.3SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PIPELINE CROSSING METHODS ALONG THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 6.4SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CROSSING METHODS
      • TABLE 6.5SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PIPELINE CROSSING METHODS ALONG THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 6.6SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CROSSING METHODS FOR THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
    • 7.0 MITIGATION AND RECLAMATION
      • 7.1 Pipeline and Facilities Construction and Operations
        • 7.1.1 Pathway of Effects
        • 7.1.2 Best Management Practices
        • 7.1.3 Recommended General Mitigation Measures
        • 7.1.4 Watercourse Reclamation Strategy
        • 7.1.5 Post-Construction Monitoring
      • TABLE 7.1PATHWAY OF EFFECTS FOR PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
    • 8.0 SUMMARY
    • 9.0 REFERENCES
      • 9.1 Literature Cited
      • 9.2 GIS Data and Mapping References
    • APPENDIX AWATERCOURSE CROSSING SUMMARY TABLE
    • APPENDIX BFISH-BEARING ATLAS
    • APPENDIX CNONFISH-BEARING ATLAS
    • APPENDIX DDISTRIBUTION AND SENSITIVITY OF FISH-BEARING WATERCOURSES
    • APPENDIX ESTANDARDIZED DRAWINGS FOR RECLAMATION MEASURES
      • Drawing 1 Typical Bank Overhang
      • Drawing 2 Streambank Protection – Typical Grass Roll
      • Drawing 3 Hedge/Brush Layering with Cobble Rock Base
      • Drawing 4 Streambank Protection – Cribwalls
      • Drawing 5 Streambank Protection – Riprap Armour
    • APPENDIX FWATERCOURSES REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES
  • V5C_TR_5C8_WETLAND
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 1.3 Objectives
      • 1.4 Regulatory Guidance
        • 1.4.1 Federal Legislation and Standards
        • 1.4.2 Provincial Legislation and Standards in Alberta
        • 1.4.3 Provincial Legislation and Standards in British Columbia
      • 1.5 Federal Legislation and Standards
        • 1.5.1 Comment on the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation
        • 1.5.2 Fish and Wildlife Regulations
        • 1.5.3 NEB Filing Requirements
      • 1.6 Provincial Legislation and Standards in Alberta
        • 1.6.1 Water Act
        • 1.6.2 Public Lands Act
        • 1.6.3 Wildlife Act
        • 1.6.4 Wetland Management in the Settled Area of Alberta: An Interim Policy
        • 1.6.5 New Alberta Wetland Policy
        • 1.6.6 Provincial Wetland Restoration/Compensation Guide
        • 1.6.7 Stepping Back from the Water – A Beneficial Management Practices Guide for New Development Near Water Bodies in Alberta
      • 1.7 Municipal Legislation and Standards in Alberta
      • 1.8 Provincial Legislation and Standards in British Columbia
        • 1.8.1 Water Act
        • 1.8.2 Oil and Gas Activities Act
        • 1.8.3 Fish Protection Act
        • 1.8.4 Wildlife Act
        • 1.8.5 Wetland Ways: Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and Conservation inBritish Columbia
      • 1.9 Municipal Legislation and Standards in BC
      • TABLE 1.5-1 WETLAND NEB FILING REQUIREMENTS
      • Figure 1.1 Project Overview: Alberta and British Columbia Trans Mountain Expansion Project
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
      • TABLE 2.1-1 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ACTIVITIES RELATED TO WETLANDS
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
      • 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
      • 3.3 Study Area Boundaries
      • 3.4 Existing Conditions
      • 3.5 Literature/Desktop Review
        • 3.5.1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
        • 3.5.2 Database Limitations
        • 3.5.3 Satellite Imagery Limitations
      • 3.6 Field Data Collection
        • 3.6.1 Wetland Classification
        • 3.6.2 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
        • 3.6.3 Reconnaissance and Ground-based Wetland Field Survey
        • 3.6.4 Wetland Function
      • 3.7 Wetland Extrapolation
      • 3.8 Navigable Wetlands
      • TABLE 3.2-1 ASSESSMENT INDICATORS AND MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTSFOR WETLAND LOSS OR ALTERATION
      • TABLE 3.6-1 WETLAND CLASSES ESTABLISHED BY THE CANADIAN WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
      • TABLE 3.6-2 WETLAND CLASSES ESTABLISHED BY THE WETLANDS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
      • TABLE 3.6-3 ABORIGINAL WETLAND FIELD SURVEY PARTICIPATION FOR THE PROJECT
      • TABLE 3.6-4 WETLAND FIELD WORK CONDUCTED IN 2012 and 2013
      • TABLE 3.6-5 HYDROLOGICAL FUNCTION PARAMETERS
      • TABLE 3.6-6 BIOGEOCHEMICAL FUNCTION PARAMETERS
      • TABLE 3.6-7 WETLAND LANDSCAPE FUNCTIONAL CONDITION BREAKDOWN
      • Figure 3.6-1 Wetland Classification Organization Chart
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW
      • 4.1 General Information
        • 4.1.1 Wetland Definition
        • 4.1.2 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
        • 4.1.3 Environmental Setting
      • 4.2 British Columbia ProvinciallyListed Wetlands
      • 4.3 Wetland Loss or Alteration
        • 4.3.1 Wetland Function Indicator
      • TABLE 4.1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
      • TABLE 4.2-1 BRITISH COLUMBIA LISTED-WETLANDS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO BE ENCOUNTERED
    • 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION
      • 5.1 Distribution of Wetlands along the Project
        • 5.1.1 Wetlands in Temporary Workspace
        • 5.1.2 Wetlands Located within the Boundary of Pump Stations and Along Power Lines
      • 5.2 Wetland Function
        • 5.2.1 Pipeline Corridor
        • 5.2.2 Pump Stations, Terminals and Power Lines
      • 5.3 Wetland-Specific Results from Supporting Biophysical Studies
        • 5.3.1 Wetland Fish and Fish Habitat
        • 5.3.2 Wetlands of Special Concern: Rare Plants or Rare Ecological Communities
        • 5.3.3 Wetland Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
        • 5.3.4 Regulatory Approvals and Permitting
      • TABLE 5.1-1 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-2 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-3 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-4 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-5 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE BURNABY TO WESTRIDGE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-6 WETLAND CLASS AND DISTRIBUTION ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-7 WETLAND CLASS AND DISTRIBUTION ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-8 WETLAND CLASS AND DISTRIBUTION ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-9 WETLAND CLASS AND DISTRIBUTION ENCOUTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-10 WETLAND CLASS AND DISTRIBUTION ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED BURNABY TO WESTRIDGE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1-11 WETLAND CLASS AND DISTRIBUTION ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT – OCTOBER 2013 RESULTS
      • TABLE 5.2-1 SUMMARY OF WETLAND FUNCTIONAL CONDITIONALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.2-2 WETLANDS TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE RECORDED FOR THE PROJECT
      • TABLE 5.3-1 POTENTIAL FISH-BEARING WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR FOR THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3-2 POTENTIAL FISH-BEARING WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR FOR THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3-3 POTENTIAL FISH-BEARING WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR FOR THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3-4 POTENTIAL FISH-BEARING WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSEDPIPELINE CORRIDOR FOR THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3-5 RARE PLANT AND RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVATIONS WITHIN WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3-6 RARE PLANT AND RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVATIONS WITHIN WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3-7 RARE PLANT AND RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVATIONS WITHIN WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3-8 RARE PLANT AND RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVATIONS WITHIN WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.3-9 DISTRIBUTION OF WETLAND SITE ASSOCIATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA BY BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONE
      • TABLE 5.3-10 RESULTS OF THE AERIAL WATERBIRD SURVEYS CONDUCTED IN 2012 AND 2013
      • TABLE 5.3-11 WATERBIRD SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONSERVATION CONCERN
      • TABLE 5.3-12 BEAVER ACTIVITY OBSERVATIONS AT WETLANDS ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
    • 6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 6.1 Pipeline
        • 6.1.1 Potential Alteration to Wetland Function
        • 6.1.2 Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation
        • 6.1.3 Supplemental Studies
        • 6.1.4 General Recommendations
        • 6.1.5 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
        • 6.1.6 Wetland Function Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 6.2 Pump Stations
        • 6.2.1 Supplemental Studies
        • 6.2.2 General Recommendations
        • 6.2.3 Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 6.3 Tanks
      • 6.4 Westridge Marine Terminal
      • TABLE 6.1-1 LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED FOR WETLAND SURVEY IN 2014
      • TABLE 6.1-2 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES – PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
      • TABLE 6.2-1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES –PUMP STATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
      • Figure 6.1-1 Conceptual diagram illustrating the effects and connectivity of hydrology, biogeochemistry and habitat features o a wetland on overall wetland function
    • 7.0 SUMMARY
    • 8.0 REFERENCES
      • 8.1 Personal Communications
      • 8.2 Literature Cited
      • 8.3 Figure and Mapping References
    • APPENDIX A FIGURES
    • APPENDIX B SITE CARDS
    • APPENDIX C PHOTOPLATES
  • V5C_TR_5C9_VEGETATION
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 1.3 Objectives
      • 1.4 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.4.1 Federal Standards
        • 1.4.2 Provincial Standards in Alberta
        • 1.4.3 Provincial Standards in British Columbia
      • Figure 1 Project Overview Alberta and British Columbia - Trans Mountain Expansion Project
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
      • Figure 2 Rare Plant, Lichen and Ecological Community Observations Vegetation Survey for the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project
      • TABLE 2.2-1 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO VEGETATION
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
      • 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
      • 3.3 Study Area Boundaries
      • 3.4 Existing Conditions
      • 3.5 Literature/Desktop Review
        • 3.5.1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 3.6 Field Data Collection
        • 3.6.1 Rare Plants and Rare Ecological Communities
        • 3.6.2 Non-Native and Invasive Species
        • 3.6.3 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 3.7 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping
      • TABLE 3.2-1 ASSESSMENT INDICATORS AND MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS FOR VEGETATION
      • TABLE 3.6.3-1 ABORIGINAL VEGETATION FIELD SURVEY PARTICIPATION FOR THE PROJECT
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW/INTERVIEWS
      • 4.1 General Information
        • 4.1.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.1.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.1.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.1.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.1.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 4.1.6 Edmonton Terminal
        • 4.1.7 Gainford Pump Station
        • 4.1.8 Niton Pump Station
        • 4.1.9 Wolf Pump Station
        • 4.1.10 Edson Pump Station
        • 4.1.11 Hinton Pump Station
        • 4.1.12 Jasper Pump Station
        • 4.1.13 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 4.1.14 Blue River Pump Station
        • 4.1.15 Blackpool Pump Station
        • 4.1.16 Darfield Pump Station
        • 4.1.17 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 4.1.18 Kamloops Pump Station
        • 4.1.19 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 4.1.20 Sumas Pump Station
        • 4.1.21 Sumas Terminal
        • 4.1.22 Burnaby Terminal
        • 4.1.23 Westridge Marine Terminal
      • 4.2 Vegetation Communities of Concern
        • 4.2.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.2.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.2.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.2.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.2.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 4.2.6 Gainford Pump Station
        • 4.2.7 Hinton Pump Station
        • 4.2.8 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 4.2.9 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 4.2.10 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 4.2.11 Sumas Terminal
      • 4.3 Plant and Lichen Species of Concern
        • 4.3.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.3.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.3.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.3.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.3.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 4.3.6 Gainford Pump Station
        • 4.3.7 Hinton Pump Station
        • 4.3.8 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 4.3.9 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 4.3.10 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 4.3.11 Sumas Terminal
      • 4.4 Provincial Weed Species and Other Invasive Non-Native Species of Concern
        • 4.4.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.4.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.4.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.4.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.4.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 4.4.6 Pump Stations and Terminals with No Native Vegetation Disturbance
        • 4.4.7 Gainford Pump Station
        • 4.4.8 Hinton Pump Station
        • 4.4.9 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 4.4.10 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 4.4.11 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 4.4.12 Sumas Terminal
      • TABLE 4.1-1 ALBERTA NATURAL SUBREGIONS BY PROJECT COMPONENT
      • TABLE 4.1-2 BC BGC ZONE/SUBZONE BY PIPELINE SEGMENTS
      • TABLE 4.1-3 BC BGC ZONE/SUBZONE BY PUMP STATIONS AND POWER LINES
      • TABLE 4.1-4 BC BGC ZONE/SUBZONE BY TERMINALS
      • TABLE 4.2-1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY OCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF ALBERTA PROJECT COMPONENTS
      • TABLE 4.2-2 RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES LISTED UNDER THE BC IWMS WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ALONG THE BC PROJECT COMPONENTS
      • TABLE 4.2-3 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY OCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF BC PROJECT COMPONENTS
      • TABLE 4.3.1-1 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN ALONG THE ALBERTA PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 4.3.1-2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT AND LICHENOCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.3.2-1 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN ALONG THE BC PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 4.3.2-2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT OCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.3.3-1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT AND LICHEN OCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.3.4-1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT AND LICHENOCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.3.5-1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT OCCURRENCE WITHIN 5 KM OF THE BURNABY TO WESTRIDGE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 4.3.6-1 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE VICINITY OF THE PUMP STATIONS FOR THE ALBERTA PORTION OF THE PROJECT
      • TABLE 4.3.6-2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT OCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF THE GAINFORD PUMP STATION
      • TABLE 4.3.7-1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT OCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF THE HINTON PUMP STATION
      • TABLE 4.3.8-1 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE VICINITY OF THE TERMINALS, POWER LINES AND PUMP STATIONS FOR THE BC PORTION OF THE PROJECT
      • TABLE 4.3.8-2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT OCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF THE REARGUARD PUMP STATION
      • TABLE 4.3.11-1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RARE PLANT OCCURRENCES WITHIN 5 KM OF THE SUMAS TERMINAL
      • TABLE 4.4.2-1 WEEDS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE NWIPC MANAGEMENT AREA
    • 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION/MODELLING
      • 5.1 General Information
        • 5.1.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 5.1.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 5.1.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 5.1.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 5.1.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 5.1.6 Gainford Pump Station
        • 5.1.7 Hinton Pump Station
        • 5.1.8 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 5.1.9 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 5.1.10 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 5.1.11 Sumas Terminal
      • 5.2 Vegetation Communities of Concern
        • 5.2.1 Beaked Sedge Marsh (S2)
        • 5.2.2 Beaked Willow/Red-Osier Dogwood (S3?)
        • 5.2.3 White Birch/Stiff Club-Moss Woodland (S2?)
        • 5.2.4 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 5.2.5 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 5.2.6 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 5.2.7 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 5.2.8 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 5.2.9 Gainford Pump Station
        • 5.2.10 Hinton Pump Station
        • 5.2.11 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 5.2.12 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 5.2.13 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 5.2.14 Sumas Terminal
      • 5.3 Plant and Lichen Species of Concern
        • 5.3.1 Observed Plant and Lichen Species of Concern Summaries
        • 5.3.2 Observed Plant and Lichen Species of Concern Descriptions
        • 5.3.3 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 5.3.4 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 5.3.5 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 5.3.6 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 5.3.7 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 5.3.8 Gainford Pump Station
        • 5.3.9 Hinton Pump Station
        • 5.3.10 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 5.3.11 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 5.3.12 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 5.3.13 Sumas Terminal
      • 5.4 Provincial Weed Species and Other Invasive Non-Native Species of Concern
        • 5.4.1 Clubroot
        • 5.4.2 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 5.4.3 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 5.4.4 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 5.4.5 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 5.4.6 Burnaby to Westridge Loop
        • 5.4.7 Pump Stations and Terminals with No Native Vegetation Disturbance
        • 5.4.8 Gainford Pump Station
        • 5.4.9 Hinton Pump Station
        • 5.4.10 Rearguard Pump Station
        • 5.4.11 Black Pines Pump Station
        • 5.4.12 Kingsvale Pump Station
        • 5.4.13 Sumas Terminal
        • 5.4.14 Westridge Marine Terminal
      • TABLE 5.1.1-1 TEM AND VEGETATION SURVEYS BY NATURAL SUBREGION FOR THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.1-2 PLANTS IDENTIFIED THROUGH TEK PARTICIPATION ALONG THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.1-3 VEGETATION TEK RECORDED ALONG THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.2-1 TEM AND VEGETATION SURVEYS BY BGC VARIANT FOR THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.2-2 PLANTS IDENTIFIED THROUGH TEK PARTICIPATION ALONG THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.2-3 VEGETATION TEK RECORDED ALONG THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.3-1 TEM AND VEGETATION SURVEYS BY BGC VARIANT FOR THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.3-2 PLANTS IDENTIFIED THROUGH TEK PARTICIPATION ALONG THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.3-3 VEGETATION TEK RECORDED ALONG THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.4-1 TEM AND VEGETATION SURVEYS BY BGC VARIANT FOR THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.4-2 PLANTS IDENTIFIED THROUGH TEK PARTICIPATION ALONG THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.1.4-3 VEGETATION TEK RECORDED ALONG THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.2-1 RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVED ON THE ALBERTA PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.2-2 POTENTIAL RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVED ON THE BC PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.2-3 DESCRIPTIONS OF RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVED ALONG THE BC PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.3-1 RARE PLANTS AND LICHENS OBSERVED IN PROXIMITY TO THE ALBERTA PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.3-2 RARE PLANTS AND LICHENS OBSERVED IN PROXIMITY TO THE BC PORTION OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.3-3 RARE PLANTS OBSERVED ON OR IN PROXIMITY TO A PROJECT FACILITY
      • TABLE 5.4.2-1 PROHIBITED NOXIOUS, NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.4.3-1 NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.4.4-1 NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.4.5-1 NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.4.8-1 PROHIBITED NOXIOUS, NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE GAINFORD PUMP STATION
      • TABLE 5.4.9-1 PROHIBITED NOXIOUS, NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE HINTON PUMP STATION
      • TABLE 5.4.11-1 NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE BLACK PINES PUMP STATION
      • TABLE 5.4.12-1 NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE KINGSVALE PUMP STATION
      • TABLE 5.4.14-1NOXIOUS AND NON-LISTED WEED SPECIES IDENTIFIED DURING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND VEGETATION SURVEYS FOR THE WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL
    • 6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 6.1 Pipeline
        • 6.1.1 Supplemental Studies
        • 6.1.2 General Recommendations
        • 6.1.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
        • 6.1.4 Post-Construction Monitoring
      • 6.2 Pump Stations
        • 6.2.1 Supplemental Studies
        • 6.2.2 General Recommendations
        • 6.2.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 6.3 Terminals
        • 6.3.1 Supplemental Studies
        • 6.3.2 General Recommendations
        • 6.3.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 6.4 Westridge Marine Terminal
        • 6.4.1 Supplemental Studies
        • 6.4.2 General Recommendations
        • 6.4.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 6.5 Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping
      • TABLE 6.1-1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES - PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
      • TABLE 6.2-1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES - PUMP STATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
      • TABLE 6.3-1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES - TERMINAL LOCATIONS
      • TABLE 6.4.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES - WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL EXPANSION
    • 7.0 SUMMARY
    • 8.0 REFERENCES
      • 8.1 Personal Communications
      • 8.2 Literature Cited
      • 8.3 GIS Data and Mapping References
    • TABLE B1 POTENTIAL RARE PLANT AND LICHEN SPECIES IN THE BOREAL FOREST – CENTRAL MIXEDWOOD AND DRY MIXEDWOOD, FOOTHILLS – LOWER FOOTHILLS, PARKLAND – CENTRAL PARKLAND NATURAL, ROCKY MOUNTAIN – MONTANE SUBREGIONS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE PROJECT
    • TABLE B2 POTENTIAL RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES IN THE CENTRAL PARKLAND, DRY MIXEDWOOD, CENTRAL MIXEDWOOD, LOWER FOOTHILLS AND MONTANE NATURAL SUBREGIONS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE PROJECT
    • TABLE B3 POTENTIAL RARE PLANT AND LICHEN SPECIES IN THE BG, CWH, ESSF, ICH, IDF, MS, MH, PP, SBS BGC ZONES AND CASCADES, CHILLIWACK, HEADWATERS, KAMLOOPS FDS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
    • TABLE B4 POTENTIAL RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES IN THE BG, CWH, ESSF, ICH, IDF, MS, MH, PP, SBS BGC ZONES AND CASCADES, CHILLIWACK, HEADWATERS, KAMLOOPS FDS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
    • TABLE D1 EDMONTON TO HINTON OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES – BY TYPE AND COMMON NAME
    • TABLE D2HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES – BY TYPE AND COMMON NAME
    • TABLE D3 BLACK PINES TO HOPE OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES – BY TYPE AND COMMON NAME
    • TABLE D4 HOPE TO BURNABY OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES – BY TYPE AND COMMON NAME
  • V5C_TR_5C10_WILDLIFE
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 1.3 Objectives
      • 1.4 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.4.1 Federal Standards
        • 1.4.2 Provincial Standards in Alberta
        • 1.4.3 Provincial Standards in British Columbia
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
      • TABLE 2.2.1SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
      • 3.2 Species with Special Conservation Status
      • 3.3 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
      • TABLE 3.3.1INDICATORS FOR WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
      • 3.4 Spatial Boundaries
      • 3.5 Existing Conditions
      • 3.6 Literature/Desktop Review
        • 3.6.1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 3.7 Field Data Collection
      • TABLE 3.7.1NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE AND ECOSECTIONCROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
        • 3.7.1 General Aerial Reconnaissance and Wildlife Feature Review
        • 3.7.2 Winter Track Survey
      • TABLE 3.7.2WINTER TRACK TRANSECTS BY PIPELINE SEGMENT AND NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE
        • 3.7.3 Aerial Waterbird Survey
      • TABLE 3.7.3SCHEDULE OF AERIAL WATERBIRD SURVEYS
      • TABLE 3.7.4NUMBER OF WATERBODIES WITH WATERBIRD OBSERVATIONS BYPIPELINE SEGMENT AND NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE
        • 3.7.4 Sharp-Tailed Grouse Survey
        • 3.7.5 Snake Survey
        • 3.7.6 Breeding Bird Survey
      • TABLE 3.7.5BREEDING BIRD SURVEY LOCATIONS BY NATURAL REGION AND ECOSECTION
        • 3.7.7 Common Nighthawk and Short-Eared Owl Survey
        • 3.7.8 Yellow Rail
        • 3.7.9 Spotted Owl Survey
        • 3.7.10 Amphibian Survey
      • TABLE 3.7.6NUMBER OF WETLANDS SURVEYED FOR POND-DWELLING AMPHIBIANSBY PIPELINE SEGMENT AND NATURAL REGION OR ECOSECTION
      • TABLE 3.7.7NUMBER OF STREAMS SURVEYED FOR COASTAL TAILED FROGBY PIPELINE SEGMENT AND ECOSECTION
      • TABLE 3.7.8NUMBER OF STREAMS SURVEYED FOR PACIFIC GIANT SALAMANDERBY PIPELINE SEGMENT AND ECOSECTION
        • 3.7.11 Wildlife Habitat Ratings Field Sampling
        • 3.7.12 Incidental Wildlife Observations
        • 3.7.13 Collection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • TABLE 3.7.9ABORIGINAL WILDLIFE FIELD SURVEY PARTICIPATION FOR THE PROJECT
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW
      • 4.1 Land Use and Environmental Setting
      • TABLE 4.1.1GENERAL LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
      • 4.2 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 4.3 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 4.3.1 Land Use Planning
        • 4.3.2 Provincial Database
      • TABLE 4.3.1FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM RECORDS FOR OCCURRENCES OF SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
        • 4.3.3 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas
      • TABLE 4.3.2PROVINCIALLY IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE AREAS – EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
        • 4.3.4 Environmentally Significant Areas
      • TABLE 4.3.3ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS - EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
        • 4.3.5 Parks and Protected Areas
      • TABLE 4.3.4PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS – EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
        • 4.3.6 Protective Notation
      • TABLE 4.3.5PROTECTIVE NOTATIONS FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT – EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
        • 4.3.7 Species with Special Conservation Status
      • TABLE 4.3.6SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
        • 4.3.8 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 4.4 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 4.4.1 Land Use Planning
        • 4.4.2 Provincial Database
        • 4.4.3 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas
      • TABLE 4.4.1PROVINCIALLY IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE AREAS - HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
        • 4.4.4 Parks and Protected Areas
      • TABLE 4.4.2PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS – HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
        • 4.4.5 Species with Special Conservation Status
      • TABLE 4.4.3SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
        • 4.4.6 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 4.5 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 4.5.1 Land Use Planning
        • 4.5.2 Provincial Database
      • TABLE 4.4.4BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE RECORDS FOR OCCURRENCES OF SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
        • 4.5.3 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas
      • TABLE 4.5.1PROVINCIALLY IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE AREAS - BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
        • 4.5.4 Parks and Protected Areas
      • TABLE 4.5.2PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS – BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
        • 4.5.5 Species with Special Conservation Status
      • TABLE 4.5.3SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
        • 4.5.6 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 4.6 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 4.6.1 Land Use Planning
        • 4.6.2 Provincial Database
      • TABLE 4.6.1BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE RECORDS FOR OCCURRENCES OF SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
        • 4.6.3 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas
        • 4.6.4 Parks and Protected Areas
        • 4.6.5 Species with Special Conservation Status
      • TABLE 4.6.2SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
        • 4.6.6 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 4.7 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 4.7.1 Land Use Planning
        • 4.7.2 Provincial Database
      • TABLE 4.7.1BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE RECORDS FOR OCCURRENCES OF SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – BURNABY TO WESTRIDGE SEGMENT
        • 4.7.3 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas
        • 4.7.4 Parks and Protected Areas
        • 4.7.5 Species with Special Conservation Status
      • TABLE 4.7.2SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS – BURNABY TO WESTRIDGE SEGMENT
        • 4.7.6 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 4.8 Facilities and Associated Infrastructure
      • TABLE 4.8.1DESKTOP/LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS FOR FACILITIESAND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
    • 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION
      • 5.1 General Habitat Information
        • 5.1.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
        • 5.1.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
        • 5.1.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
        • 5.1.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
        • 5.1.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment
        • 5.1.6 Facilities and Associated Infrastructure
      • TABLE 5.1.1GENERAL REVIEW FOR FACILITIES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
      • 5.2 Results of Field Data Collection
        • 5.2.1 General Aerial Reconnaissance and Wildlife Feature Review
        • 5.2.2 Winter Track Survey
      • TABLE 5.2.1OBSERVED WINTER TRACK COUNTS BY PIPELINE SEGMENT AND NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE
      • TABLE 5.2.2MEAN DENSITY OF WINTER TRACKS BY PIPELINE SEGMENT AND NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE
        • 5.2.3 Aerial Waterbird Survey
      • TABLE 5.2.3RESULTS OF THE AERIAL WATERBIRD BREEDING AND FALL STAGING SURVEYS BY PIPELINE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.2.4AERIAL WATERBIRD BREEDING SURVEY SPECIES RICHNESS, DENSITY AND DIVERSITY BY NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE
      • TABLE 5.2.5MEAN INDICATED BREEDING PAIRS AND INDICATED BREEDING PAIR DENSITY OF WATERBIRDS OBSERVED ON WETLANDS WITHIN 500 M OF THE GENERAL CENTRE OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.2.6MEAN INDICATED BREEDING PAIRS AND INDICATED BREEDING PAIR DENSITYOF WATERBIRDS OBSERVED ON WATERCOURSES WITHIN 500 M OF THE GENERAL CENTRE OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR
      • TABLE 5.2.7AERIAL WATERBIRD 2012 FALL STAGING SURVEY OBSERVATION LOCATIONS, SPECIESRICHNESS AND DIVERSITY BY NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE
      • TABLE 5.2.8AERIAL WATERBIRD 2013 FALL STAGING SURVEY OBSERVATION LOCATIONS, SPECIESRICHNESS AND DIVERSITY BY NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE
        • 5.2.4 Sharp-Tailed Grouse Survey
        • 5.2.5 Snake Survey
        • 5.2.6 Breeding Bird Survey
      • TABLE 5.2.9BREEDING BIRD SURVEY OBSERVATIONS, SPECIES RICHNESS, DIVERSITY AND DENSITY BY PIPELINE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.2.10BREEDING BIRD SURVEY LOCATIONS AND SPECIES RICHNESS, DENSITYAND DIVERSITY BY NATURAL REGION AND ECOSECTION
        • 5.2.7 Common Nighthawk and Short-Eared Owl Surveys
        • 5.2.8 Yellow Rail
        • 5.2.9 Spotted Owl Surveys
        • 5.2.10 Amphibian Survey
      • TABLE 5.2.11AMPHIBIAN SPECIES OBSERVED DURING POND-DWELLING AMPHIBIAN SURVEYS BY PIPELINE SEGMENT AND NATURAL REGION OR ECOSECTION
      • TABLE 5.2.12COASTAL TAILED FROGS OBSERVED DURING STREAM-DWELLINGAMPHIBIAN SURVEYS BY ECOSECTION
        • 5.2.11 Wildlife Habitat Ratings Field Sampling
        • 5.2.12 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • TABLE 5.2.13WILDLIFE TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE RECORDEDALONG THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.2.14WILDLIFE TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE RECORDED ALONGTHE HARGREAVES TO DARFIELD SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.2.15WILDLIFE TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE RECORDEDALONG THE BLACK PINES TO HOPE SEGMENT
      • TABLE 5.2.16WILDLIFE TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE RECORDEDALONG THE HOPE TO BURNABY SEGMENT
        • 5.2.13 Summary of Species Observations
      • TABLE 5.2.17OBSERVATIONS OF SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS
      • TABLE 5.2.18 OBSERVATIONS OF WILDLIFE INDICATORS BY PIPELINE SEGMENT AND NATURAL REGION OR ECOPROVINCE
    • 6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 6.1 Recommended Mitigation
      • TABLE 6.1.1RECOMMENDED WILDLIFE MITIGATION MEASURES
      • 6.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • 6.3 Supplemental Wildlife Field Studies
      • 6.4 Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring
    • 7.0 SUMMARY
      • TABLE 7.0.1WILDLIFE FIELD SURVEYS – RESULTS SUMMARY (2012 AND 2013)
    • 8.0 REFERENCES
      • 8.1 Personal Communications
      • 8.2 Literature Cited
      • 8.3 GIS Data and Mapping References
    • APPENDIX AFIGURES
      • Figure 1.1 Project Overview Alberta and British Columbia
      • Figure 3.4.1 Wildlife Study Areas – Edmonton to Hinton
      • Figure 3.4.2 Wildlife Study Areas – Hargreaves to Darfield
      • Figure 3.4.3 Wildlife Study Areas – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 3.4.4 Wildlife Study Areas – Hope to Westridge
      • Figure 3.4.5 Grizzly Bear Regional Study Area
      • Figure 3.4.6 Caribou Regional Study Area
      • Figure 3.7.1 Natural Regions and Ecoprovinces
      • Figure 4.3.1 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas, Environmentally Significant Areas and Parks and Protected Areas – Edmonto to Hinton
      • Figure 4.4.1 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas and Parks and Protected Areas – Hargreaves to Darfield
      • Figure 4.5.1 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas and Parks and Protected Areas – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 4.6.1 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas and Parks and Protected Areas – Hope to Westridge
      • Figure 4.8.1 Kingsvale Pump Station and Power Line – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 5.2.1 Winter Track Transects – Edmonton to Hinton
      • Figure 5.2.2 Winter Track Transects – Hargreaves to Darfield
      • Figure 5.2.3 Winter Track Transects – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 5.2.4 Aerial Waterbird Breeding and Fall Staging Survey Observations – Edmonton to Hinton (Sheet 1 of 2)
      • Figure 5.2.5 Aerial Waterbird Breeding and Fall Staging Survey Observations – Edmonton to Hinton (Sheet 2 of 2)
      • Figure 5.2.6 Aerial Waterbird Breeding and Fall Staging Survey Observations – Hargreaves to Darfield (Sheet 1 of 2)
      • Figure 5.2.7 Aerial Waterbird Breeding and Fall Staging Survey Observations – Hargreaves to Darfield (Sheet 2 of 2)
      • Figure 5.2.8 Aerial Waterbird Breeding and Fall Staging Survey Observations – Black Pines to Hope (Sheet 1 of 2)
      • Figure 5.2.9 Aerial Waterbird Breeding and Fall Staging Survey Observations – Black Pines to Hope (Sheet 2 of 2)
      • Figure 5.2.10 Aerial Waterbird Breeding and Fall Staging Survey Observations – Hope to Westridge (Sheet 1 of 2)
      • Figure 5.2.11 Aerial Waterbird Breeding and Fall Staging Survey Observations – Hope to Westridge (Sheet 2 of 2)
      • Figure 5.2.12 Sharp-Tailed Grouse Survey Locations and Observations– Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 5.2.13 Snake Survey Locations and Observations – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 5.2.14 Breeding Bird Survey Locations – Edmonton to Hinton
      • Figure 5.2.15 Breeding Bird Survey Locations – Hargreaves to Darfield
      • Figure 5.2.16 Breeding Bird Survey Locations – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 5.2.17 Breeding Bird Survey Locations – Hope to Westridge
      • Figure 5.2.18 Common Nighthawk and Short-Eared Owl Survey Locations – Edmonton to Hinton and Hargreaves to Darfield
      • Figure 5.2.19 Spotted Owl Survey Locations – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 5.2.20 Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Survey Locations – Edmonton to Hinton
      • Figure 5.2.21 Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Survey Locations – Hargreaves to Darfield
      • Figure 5.2.22 Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Survey Locations – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 5.2.23 Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Survey Locations – Hope to Westridge
      • Figure 5.2.24 Stream-Dwelling Amphibian Survey Locations – Black Pines to Hope
      • Figure 5.2.25 Stream-Dwelling Amphibian Survey Locations – Hope to Westridge
    • APPENDIX BPOTENTIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS
      • TABLE B1POTENTIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR - ALBERTA
      • TABLE B2POTENTIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR - BRITISH COLUMBIA
    • APPENDIX CLAND USE PLANNING AREAS
      • TABLE C1LAND USE PLANNING AREAS – EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT
      • TABLE C2LAND USE PLANNING AREAS – HARGREAVES TO WESTRIDGE SEGMENT
    • APPENDIX DPHOTOPLATES
    • APPENDIX EWILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED DURING FIELD SURVEYS (2012 AND 2013)
      • TABLE E1WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED DURING FIELD SURVEYS (2012 AND 2013)
    • APPENDIX FINCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS (2012 AND 2013)
      • TABLE F1INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF BIRD SPECIES
      • TABLE F2INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF MAMMAL SPECIES
      • TABLE F3INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES
      • TABLE F4INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF INVERTEBRATE SPECIES
  • V5C_TR_5C11_WILDLIFE_MODEL_SPEC
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Objectives
      • 1.3 Standards
    • 2.0 METHODS
      • 2.1 Study Area Boundaries
      • 2.2 Wildlife Indicators
      • 2.3 Life Requisites and Seasons of Use
      • 2.4 Habitat Modelling Approach
      • 2.5 Ecosystem Mapping and Data Sources
      • 2.6 Field Ratings
      • 2.7 Habitat Suitability Ratings
      • 2.8 Suitability Rating Adjustments
        • 2.8.1 Adjustments for Anthropogenic Disturbance
        • 2.8.2 Adjustments for Proximity to Landscape Features
      • 2.9 Indicator Distribution
        • 2.9.1 Model Evaluation and Refinement
      • TABLE 2.3-1 LIFE REQUISITES AND SEASONS OF USE APPLIED TO HABITAT MODELS
      • TABLE 2.3-2 SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE INDICATORS AND HABITAT MODELS
      • TABLE 2.7-1 RATING SYSTEM USED FOR HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING
      • TABLE 2.9-1 DISTRIBUTION OF MODELLED INDICATORS RELATIVE TO THE WILDLIFELOCAL STUDY AREA AND REGIONAL STUDY AREA
    • 3.0 MAMMAL SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS
      • 3.1 Grizzly Bear
        • 3.1.1 Status
        • 3.1.2 Distribution
        • 3.1.3 General Ecology
        • 3.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 3.1.5 Limiting Factors
        • 3.1.6 Model Development
      • 3.2 Woodland Caribou
        • 3.2.1 Status
        • 3.2.2 Distribution
        • 3.2.3 General Ecology
        • 3.2.4 Limiting Factors
      • 3.3 Moose
        • 3.3.1 Status
        • 3.3.2 Distribution
        • 3.3.3 General Ecology
        • 3.3.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 3.3.5 Limiting Factors
        • 3.3.6 Model Development
      • 3.4 Forest Furbearers
        • 3.4.1 American Marten
        • 3.4.2 Fisher
      • 3.5 Coastal Riparian Small Mammals
        • 3.5.1 Pacific Water Shrew
        • 3.5.2 Mountain Beaver
      • 3.6 Bats
        • 3.6.1 Status
        • 3.6.2 Distribution
        • 3.6.3 General Ecology
        • 3.6.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 3.6.5 Limiting Factors
        • 3.6.6 Model Development
      • TABLE 3.1-1 GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATION UNITS AND BEAR MANAGEMENT AREASINTERSECTED BY THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA
      • TABLE 3.3-1 MOOSE POPULATION ESTIMATES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ALBERTA
      • TABLE 3.3-2 IMPORTANT MOOSE BROWSE SPECIES
      • TABLE 3.3-3 MAXIMUM RATINGS FOR BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONES AND NATURAL SUBREGIONSOCCURRING WITHIN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA
      • TABLE 3.3-4 MAXIMUM RATINGS FOR MOOSE WINTER FORAGING HABITAT BASED ONSTRUCTURAL STAGE AND PRESENCE OF PREFERRED BROWSE SPECIES
      • TABLE 3.3-5 HABITAT RATINGS FOR LOW SNOWFALL AREAS BASEDON STAND TYPE AND STRUCTURAL STAGE
      • TABLE 3.3-6 HABITAT RATINGS FOR HIGH SNOWFALL AREAS BASEDON STAND TYPE AND STRUCTURAL STAGE
      • TABLE 3.4-1 SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE FOREST FURBEARERS INDICATOR GROUP
      • TABLE 3.4-2 RATINGS FOR MARTEN GENERAL LIVING HABITAT ACCOUNTING FOR SOILMOISTURE, STAND COMPOSITION, AND STRUCTURAL STAGE
      • TABLE 3.4-3 BIOGEOCLIMATIC VARIANTS ALONG THE WILDLIFE LOCALSTUDY AREA THAT FALL WITHIN FISHER RANGE
      • TABLE 3.4-4 SUITABILITY RATINGS FOR FISHER ADJUSTED ACCORDINGTO STAND CHARACTERISTICS AND MOISTURE REGIME
      • TABLE 3.5-1 SPECIES IN THE COASTAL RIPARIAN SMALL MAMMALS COMMUNITY INDICATORTHAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA
      • TABLE 3.6-1 BAT SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA
      • TABLE 3.6-2 TREE SPECIES AND HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR TREE-ROOSTING BATS
    • 4.0 BIRD SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS
      • 4.1 Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Birds
        • 4.1.1 Status
        • 4.1.2 Distribution
        • 4.1.3 General information
        • 4.1.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.1.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.1.6 Model Development
      • 4.2 Mature/Old Forest Birds
        • 4.2.1 Status
        • 4.2.2 Distribution
        • 4.2.3 General information
        • 4.2.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.2.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.2.6 Model Development
      • 4.3 Early Seral Forest Birds
        • 4.3.1 Status
        • 4.3.2 Distribution
        • 4.3.3 General Information
        • 4.3.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.3.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.3.6 Model Development
      • 4.4 Riparian and Wetland Birds
        • 4.4.1 Status
        • 4.4.2 Distribution
        • 4.4.3 General Ecology
        • 4.4.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.4.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.4.6 Model Development
      • 4.5 Wood Warblers
        • 4.5.1 Black-Throated Green Warbler
        • 4.5.2 Cape May Warbler
      • 4.6 Short-Eared Owl
        • 4.6.1 Status
        • 4.6.2 Distribution
        • 4.6.3 General Ecology
        • 4.6.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.6.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.6.6 Model Development
      • 4.7 Rusty Blackbird
        • 4.7.1 Status
        • 4.7.2 Distribution
        • 4.7.3 General Ecology
        • 4.7.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.7.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.7.6 Model Development
      • 4.8 Flammulated Owl
        • 4.8.1 Status
        • 4.8.2 Distribution
        • 4.8.3 General Ecology
        • 4.8.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.8.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.8.6 Model Development
      • 4.9 Lewis’s Woodpecker
        • 4.9.1 Status
        • 4.9.2 Distribution
        • 4.9.3 General Ecology
        • 4.9.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.9.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.9.6 Model Development
      • 4.10 Williamson’s Sapsucker
        • 4.10.1 Status
        • 4.10.2 Distribution
        • 4.10.3 General Ecology
        • 4.10.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.10.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.10.6 Model Development
      • 4.11 Western Screech-Owl
        • 4.11.1 Status
        • 4.11.2 Distribution
        • 4.11.3 General Ecology
        • 4.11.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.11.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.11.6 Model Development
      • 4.12 Great Blue Heron
        • 4.12.1 Status
        • 4.12.2 Distribution
        • 4.12.3 General Ecology
        • 4.12.4 Limiting Factors
      • 4.13 Spotted Owl
        • 4.13.1 Status
        • 4.13.2 Distribution
        • 4.13.3 General Ecology
        • 4.13.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.13.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.13.6 Model Development
      • 4.14 Bald Eagle
        • 4.14.1 Status
        • 4.14.2 Distribution
        • 4.14.3 General Ecology
        • 4.14.4 Limiting Factors
      • 4.15 Common Nighthawk
        • 4.15.1 Status
        • 4.15.2 Distribution
        • 4.15.3 General Ecology
        • 4.15.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.15.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.15.6 Model Development
      • 4.16 Northern Goshawk
        • 4.16.1 Status
        • 4.16.2 Distribution
        • 4.16.3 General Ecology
        • 4.16.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.16.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.16.6 Model Development
      • 4.17 Olive-Sided Flycatcher
        • 4.17.1 Status
        • 4.17.2 Distribution
        • 4.17.3 General Ecology
        • 4.17.4 Key Habitat Requirements
        • 4.17.5 Limiting Factors
        • 4.17.6 Model Development
      • TABLE 4.1-1 GRASSLAND SHRUB-STEPPE BIRD COMMUNITY SPECIES
      • TABLE 4.1-2 RATINGS ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE GRASSLAND/SHRUB-STEPPE BIRD HABITAT MODEL
      • TABLE 4.2-1 MATURE/OLD FOREST BIRD COMMUNITY SPECIES
      • TABLE 4.2-2 MATURE/OLD SERAL FOREST BIRD HABITAT RATINGS ASSUMPTIONSFOR STAND COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURAL STAGE
      • TABLE 4.3-1 EARLY SERAL FOREST BIRD COMMUNITY SPECIES
      • TABLE 4.3-2 EARLY SERAL FOREST BIRD HABITAT RATINGS ASSUMPTIONSFOR STAND COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURAL STAGE
      • TABLE 4.4-1 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND BIRD COMMUNITY SPECIES
      • TABLE 4.5-1 BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONSBASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE HABITAT IN ALBERTA
      • TABLE 4.5-2 BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONSWITHIN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA
      • TABLE 4.5-3 CAPE MAY WARBLER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONS BASEDON THE BEST AVAILABLE HABITAT IN ALBERTA
      • TABLE 4.5-4 CAPE MAY WARBLER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONSWITHIN THE WILDLIFE LOCAL STUDY AREA
      • TABLE 4.6-1 RATINGS FOR SHORT-EARED OWL NESTING HABITAT, ADJUSTEDFOR STRUCTURAL STAGE AND GENERAL HABITAT TYPE
      • TABLE 4.7-1 RATINGS FOR RUSTY BLACKBIRD WETLAND HABITATS, ACCOUNTING FORSTAND COMPOSITION AND THE PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF BLACK SPRUCE
      • TABLE 4.8-1 MAXIMUM FLAMMULATED OWL HABITAT SUITABILITY RATINGBASED ON TYPICAL SOIL MOISTURE REGIME
      • TABLE 4.11-1 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL, MACFARLANEI NESTING HABITAT MAXIMUM RATINGS
      • TABLE 4.11-2 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL, KENNICOTTII NESTING HABITAT MAXIMUM RATINGS
      • TABLE 4.13-1 RATINGS ASSUMPTIONS FOR SPOTTED OWL NESTING HABITAT SUITABILITY
      • TABLE 4.15-1 COMMON NIGHTHAWK HABITAT RATINGS ADJUSTINGFOR STRUCTURAL STAGE AND SOIL MOISTURE
      • TABLE 4.17-1 OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER HABITAT RATING ASSUMPTIONS
    • 5.0 AMPHIBIAN SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS
      • 5.1 Pond-Dwelling Amphibians
        • 5.1.1 Pond-Dwelling Amphibian Model
        • 5.1.2 Western Toad
        • 5.1.3 Great Basin Spadefoot
      • 5.2 Stream-Dwelling Amphibians
        • 5.2.1 Coastal Tailed Frog
      • TABLE 5.1-1 POND-DWELLING AMPHIBIAN SPECIES THAT ARE LIKELYTO OCCUR ALONG THE PROJECT ROUTE
      • TABLE 5.1-2 AQUATIC HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF POND-DWELLING AMPHIBIANSPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR ALONG THE PROJECT ROUTE
      • TABLE 5.1-3 WESTERN TOAD HABITAT RATINGS ADJUSTEDFOR SOIL MOISTURE AND STRUCTURAL STAGE
      • TABLE 5.1-4 HABITAT RATINGS FOR GREAT BASIN SPADEFOOTADJUSTED FOR SOIL TEXTURE AND MOISTURE
      • TABLE 5.2-1 RATING INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE COASTAL TAILED FROG MODEL
      • TABLE 5.2-2 MAXIMUM HABITAT RATINGS OF STREAM SEGMENTS BASED ONGRADIENT AND BASIN AREA FOR COASTAL TAILED FROG
    • 6.0 REPTILE SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT MODELS
      • 6.1 Arid Habitat Snakes
        • 6.1.1 Western Rattlesnake
      • TABLE 6.1-1 ARID HABITAT SNAKE SPECIES THAT ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR ALONGTHE PROJECT IN THE SOUTHERN INTERIOR ECOPROVINCE
      • TABLE 6.1-2 RATING REDUCTIONS FOR WESTERN RATTLESNAKE HABITATDEPENDING ON INCIDENT SOLAR INSOLATION
      • TABLE 6.1-3 RATING REDUCTIONS FOR WESTERN RATTLESNAKE HABITATDEPENDING ON INCIDENT SOLAR INSOLATION
    • 7.0 SUMMARY
    • 8.0 REFERENCES
      • 8.1 Personal Communications
      • 8.2 Literature Cited
  • V5C_TR_5C12_MAR_SEDI_H20_WRIDGE
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Objectives
      • 1.3 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.3.1 Federal Standards
        • 1.3.2 Provincial Standards in BC
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
    • Table 2.1: Summary of Regulatory Consultation Activities Related to Marine Sediment and Water Quality
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
        • 3.1.1 Marine Sediment Quality
        • 3.1.2 Marine Water Quality
      • 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
    • Table 3.1: Marine Sediment and Water Quality Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
      • 3.3 Study Area Boundaries
      • 3.4 Existing Conditions
    • Figure 3.1: Footprint and Marine Sediment and Water Quality LSA
    • Figure 3.2: Marine RSA
      • 3.5 Literature/Desktop Review
      • 3.6 Field Data Collection
        • 3.6.1 Sediment Sampling Methods
    • Figure 3.3: Historical Marine Sediment and Water Sampling Locations in Burrard Inlet
    • Figure 3.4: Sediment and Water Sampling Locations at Westridge Marine Terminal, May 2013
      • 3.6.2 Water Sampling Methods
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW
      • 4.1 Physical Setting
        • 4.1.1 Footprint
        • 4.1.2 Local Study Area
        • 4.1.3 Regional Study Area
      • 4.2 Biological Setting
      • 4.3 Marine Sediment Quality
        • 4.3.1 Hydrocarbons in Sediment
        • 4.3.2 PCBs in Sediment
        • 4.3.3 Metals in Sediment
        • 4.3.4 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Sediment
      • 4.4 Marine Water Quality
        • 4.4.1 Hydrocarbons in Water
        • 4.4.2 Metals in Water
        • 4.4.3 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Turbidity in Water
    • 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION
      • 5.1 General Information
      • 5.2 Marine Sediment Quality
        • 5.2.1 Supporting Parameters (Particle Size, Total Organic Carbon)
    • Table 5.1: General Marine Sediment Characteristics in the Footprint, May 2013
      • 5.2.2 Hydrocarbons (PAH, LEPH, HEPH, BTEX)
    • Table 5.2: Marine Sediment Characteristics for Hydrocarbons and PCBs (mg/kg) in the Footprint, May 2013
      • 5.2.3 PCBs
      • 5.2.4 Metals
    • Table 5.3: Marine Sediment Characteristics for Metals (mg/kg) in the Footprint, May 2013
      • 5.3 Marine Water Quality
    • 6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 6.1 Westridge Marine Terminal
        • 6.1.1 Supplemental Studies
        • 6.1.2 General Recommendations
    • Table 6.1: Potential Effects and Recommended Mitigation Measures for Marine Sediment and Water Quality – Westridge Marine Terminal
    • 7.0 SUMMARY
    • 8.0 REFERENCES
      • 8.1 Literature Cited
      • 8.2 Figure and Mapping References
    • Appendix A
      • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
        • 1.1 Background Information
        • 1.2 Objectives
      • 2.0 METHODS
        • 2.1 Sampling Area Boundaries
        • 2.2 Field Surveys
        • 2.3 Laboratory Analyses
      • Figure 2.1: Sediment Sampling Locations at Westridge Marine Terminal, May 2013
      • Table 2-1: Sampling Dates, Station Coordinates and Physical Characteristics of Sediment Collected at the Proposed Westridge Ma椀渀攀 吀攀爀洀椀渀愀氀 䔀砀瀀愀渀猀椀漀渀 愀爀攀愀 椀渀 䴀愀礀 ㈀　㄀㌀
        • 2.4 Data Analyses
      • Table 2-2: Marine Sediment Screening Criteria
        • 2.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
          • 2.5.1 Field Procedures
          • 2.5.2 Laboratory Procedures
      • 3.0 RESULTS OF BASELINE INVESTIGATIONS
        • 3.1 Water Chemistry
      • Table 3-1: Water Chemistry Parameters Present at Levels Above Detection Limits
        • 3.2 Sediment Particle Size, Total Organic Carbon and Paste Salinity
      • Table 3-2: Particle Size, TOC and Salinity in Surface Sediment (top 7.5 cm)
      • Table 3-3: Particle Size, TOC and Salinity in Core Samples (0 to 0.5 m Depth)
      • Table 3-4: Particle Size, TOC and Salinity in Core Samples (0.5 to 1 m Depth)
      • Table 3-5: Particle Size in Core Samples (1 to 2 m Depth)
        • 3.3 Sediment Metals
      • Table 3-6: Metal Levels (mg/kg) in Surface Sediments (top 7.5 cm)
      • Table 3-7: Metal Levels (mg/kg) in Sediment Cores (0 - 0.5 m depth)
      • Table 3-8: Metal Levels (mg/kg) in Sediment Cores (0.5 - 1.0 m depth)
      • Table 3-9: Metal Levels (mg/kg) in Sediment Cores (1.0 - 2.0 m depth)
        • 3.4 Sediment Hydrocarbons (PAH)
      • Table 3-10: Total PAH Concentrations (mg/kg) in Surface and Core Samples
        • 3.5 Sediment Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
      • Table 3-11: Polychlorinated Biphenyls Analyzed at All Monitored Stations
      • Table 3-12: Summary Statistics for Polychlorinated Biphenyls Concentrations (mg/kg) in Surface Sediments and Core Samples
      • 4.0 REFERENCES
      • Table A-1: Field Duplicate Data and Relative Percent Difference for Sediment (Particle Size, General Chemistry and Metals) Collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table A-2: Field Duplicate Data (mg/kg) and Relative Percent Difference for Sediment (PCBs) Collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table A-3: Field Duplicate Data (mg/kg) and Relative Percent Difference for Sediment (PAHs) Collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table A-4: Laboratory Duplicate Data (mg/kg) and Relative Percent Difference for Sediment (PCBs) Collected from the Footprin (May 2013)
      • Table A-5: Laboratory Duplicate Data (mg/kg) and Relative Percent Difference for Sediment (PAHs) Collected from the Footprin (May 2013)
      • Table A-6: QAQC Data for Metals in Sediment Collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table B-1: Water Chemistry Data Collected at Shallow and Deep Ebb and Flood Tides (May 2013)
      • Table C-1: Particle Size (Percent) in Surface and Core Sediment Samples collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-2: Metal (mg/kg) and Total Organic Carbon (%) Levels (mg/kg) in Surface Sediment collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-3: Metal (mg/kg) and Total Organic Carbon (%) Levels in Core Sediment (0 – 0.5 m) collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-4: Metal (mg/kg) and Total Organic Carbon (%) Levels in Core Sediment (0.5 – 1.0 m) collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-5: Metal (mg/kg) and Total Organic Carbon (%) Levels in Core Sediment (1.0 – 1.5 m) collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-6: Metal (mg/kg) and Total Organic Carbon (%) Levels in Core Sediment (1.5 – 2.0 m) collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-7: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Levels (mg/kg) in Surface Sediment collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-8: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Levels (mg/kg) in Core Samples (0 to 0.5 m) Sediment collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-9: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Levels (mg/kg) in Core Samples (0.5 to 1 m) Sediment collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-10: Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) levels (mg/kg) in Surface Sediment collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-11: Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) levels (mg/kg) in Core Samples (0 to 0.5 m) Surface Sediment collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
      • Table C-12: Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) levels (mg/kg) in Core Samples (0.5 to 1 m) Surface Sediment collected from the Footprint (May 2013)
  • V5C_TR_5C13_MAR_RESOURCES_WRIDGE
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Objectives
      • 1.3 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.3.1 Federal Standards
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
    • Table 2.1: Summary of Consultation Activities Related to Marine Resources
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
      • 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
    • Table 3.1: Marine Resources Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
    • Table 3.2: Potential Environmental Effects and Measurement Endpoints
      • 3.3 Study Area Boundaries
      • 3.4 Existing Conditions
      • 3.5 Literature/Desktop Review
      • 3.6 Field Data Collection Methods
        • 3.6.1 Marine Riparian Habitat Survey
        • 3.6.2 Intertidal Survey
    • Table 3.3 Ecosystem Descriptors
    • Table 3.4 Biotic Characteristics of the High, Mid, and Low Intertidal Zones
    • Table 3.5 Classification of Substrate Types
    • Table 3.6 Types of Marine Plants
      • 3.6.3 Subtidal Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Survey
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW
      • 4.1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge
      • 4.2 General Information
        • 4.2.1 Physical Setting
        • 4.2.2 Biological Setting
      • 4.3 Indicator Species and Habitats
        • 4.3.1 Marine Riparian Habitat
        • 4.3.2 Intertidal Habitat
    • Table 4.1: Length and Relative Abundance of Shore Types
      • 4.3.3 Subtidal Habitat
      • 4.3.4 Dungeness Crab
      • 4.3.5 Pacific Salmon
      • 4.3.6 Inshore Rockfish
      • 4.3.7 Harbour Seal
    • 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION
      • 5.1 Marine Riparian Habitat
    • Table 5.1: Marine Riparian Habitat Types
    • Table 5.2: Relative Abundance of Vascular Plant Species
      • 5.1.1 Summary
      • 5.2 Intertidal Habitat
        • 5.2.1 Slope and Substrate Type
    • Table 5.3: Slope and Length of Vertical Transects
    • Table 5.4: Substrate Type (% Cover) Based on Quadrat Average
      • 5.2.2 Biological Communities
    • Table 5.5: Marine Invertebrate Species Observed in the Intertidal Zone
    • Table 5.6: Average Percent Cover/Average Number of Marine Invertebrates per Quadrat
    • Table 5.7: Occurrence Rate (%) of Marine Invertebrates
    • Table 5.8: Marine Algae Species Observed in the Intertidal Zone
    • Table 5.9: Average Percent Cover of Marine Algae per Quadrat
    • Table 5.10: Occurrence Rate (%) of Marine Algae
      • 5.2.3 Zone Characteristics
    • Table 5.11: Average Percent Cover of Substrate Types in Intertidal Zones
    • Table 5.12: Average Percent Cover/Number of Individuals of Marine Invertebrates in Intertidal Zones
    • Table 5.13: Average Percent Cover of Marine Algae in Intertidal Zones
      • 5.2.4 Summary
      • 5.3 Subtidal Habitat
    • Table 5.14: Marine Species Observed during the Subtidal ROV Survey
      • 5.3.1 Substrate Type
      • 5.3.2 Algae
      • 5.3.3 Invertebrates
      • 5.3.4 Fish
      • 5.3.5 Summary
      • 5.4 Marine Mammals
    • 6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 6.1 Supplemental Studies
      • 6.2 General Recommendations
    • Table 6.1: Potential Effects and Recommended Mitigation Measures for Marine Resources - Westridge Marine Terminal
    • 7.0 SUMMARY
    • 8.0 REFERENCES
      • 8.1 Literature Cited
      • 8.2 Figure and Mapping References
    • Appendix A Figures
    • Figure 3.1: Footprint and Marine Resources LSA
    • Figure 3.2: Marine RSA
    • Figure 3.3: Intertidal Survey Transect Locations
    • Figure 3.4: Subtidal ROV Survey Transect Locations
    • Figure 4.1: Distribution of Shore Types in the Marine Resources LSA and Marine RSA
    • Figure 4.2: Distribution of Benthic Classes in the Marine RSA
    • Figure 4.3: DFO Important Areas for Dungeness Crab in the Marine RSA
    • Figure 4.4: Salmon-bearing Rivers and Streams Entering the Marine RSA and DFO Important Areas for Pacific Salmon
    • Figure 4.5: Rockfish Conservation Areas in the Marine RSA
    • Figure 4.6: DFO Important Areas for Harbour Seals and Haulout Sites
    • Figure 5.1: Marine Riparian Habitat at the Westridge Marine Terminal
    • Figure 5.2: Substrate Types Observed During the Subtidal ROV Survey
    • Figure 5.3: Algae Observed during the Subtidal ROV Survey
    • Figure 5.4: Crab and Shrimp Observed During the Subtidal ROV Survey
    • Figure 5.5: Invertebrates Observed During the Subtidal ROV Survey
    • Figure 5.6: Fish Observed During the Subtidal ROV Survey
    • Appendix B Subtidal Remotely Operated Vehicle Survey Data Sheets
  • V5C_TR_5C14_MAR_BIRDS_WRIDGE
    • 1.0 INTRODUCTION
      • 1.1 Project Overview
      • 1.2 Marine Birds
      • 1.3 Objectives
      • 1.4 Regulatory Standards
        • 1.4.1 Federal Standards
        • 1.4.2 Provincial Standards in British Columbia
    • 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
      • 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations
      • 2.2 Regulatory Consultation
    • Table 2.1 Summary of Consultation Activities Related to Marine Birds
    • 3.0 METHODS
      • 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects
        • 3.1.1 Marine Birds
      • 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints
    • Table 3.1 Summary of Selected Marine Bird Indicators
    • Table 3.2 Marine Bird Project Effects and Measurement Endpoints
      • 3.3 Study Area Boundaries
    • Figure 3.1 Footprint and Marine Birds LSA
    • Figure 3.2 Marine RSA
      • 3.4 Existing Conditions
        • 3.4.1 Literature/Desktop Review
      • 3.5 Field Data Collection
        • 3.5.1 Shore-based Surveys
        • 3.5.2 Incidental Observations
    • Figure 3.3 Marine Bird Survey Stations
    • 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW
      • 4.1 Traditional Use
      • 4.2 Physical Setting
      • 4.3 Biological Setting
        • 4.3.1 Important Bird Area
        • 4.3.2 Bird Community
    • Plate 4.1 Historical Occurrence of Indicator Species in Burrard Inlet
    • Table 4.1 Marine Birds of Burrard Inlet
    • Figure 4.1 Burrard Inlet IBA, Breeding Colonies and Conservation Area in Burrard Inlet
      • 4.4 Marine Bird Species at Risk
    • Table 4.2 Marine Bird Species at Risk Potentially Occurring in the Marine RSA
      • 4.5 Indicator Species
        • 4.5.1 Bald Eagle
        • 4.5.1 Great Blue Heron
        • 4.5.2 Pelagic Cormorant
        • 4.5.3 Barrow’s Goldeneye
        • 4.5.4 Glaucous-winged Gull
        • 4.5.5 Spotted Sandpiper
    • 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION
      • 5.1 Stationary Shoreline Surveys
    • Table 5.1 Results of Seasonal Data Collection of Marine Birds in the LSA
      • 5.1.1 Additional data
    • Plate 5.1 Waterbird Observations in Bedwell Bay Since 2005
      • 5.2 Incidental Observations
    • Table 5.2 Incidental Observations of Marine Birds in the LSA
    • 6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
      • 6.1 Supplemental Studies
      • 6.2 General Recommendations
    • Table 6.1 Potential Effects and Recommended Mitigation MeasuresWestridge Marine Terminal Expansion
    • 7.0 SUMMARY
    • 8.0 REFERENCES
      • 8.1 Personal Communications
      • 8.2 Literature Cited
      • 8.3 Figure and Mapping References
    • Plate A.1 View of the Terminal infrastructure on January 16, 2013
    • Plate A.2 View north from the Terminal on October 17, 2012
    • Plate A.3 View south from the wharf at the Terminal on January 16, 2013
    • Plate A.4 View south of shoreline at the Terminal on January 16, 2013
    • Plate A.5 View east from the wharf at the Terminal on October 17, 2012
    • Plate A.6 View east of the shoreline at the Terminal on January 16, 2013
    • Plate A.7 View west from the wharf at the Terminal on January 16, 2013
    • Plate A.8 View west of the shoreline at the Terminal on January 16, 2013
Trans Mountain Expansion Project
An Application Pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act
December 2013
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC
CANADA
Volume
5c
ESA - Biophysical Technical Reports