December 7, Filed Electronically. National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2R 0A8

Transcription

1 450 1 Street SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 5H1 December 7, 2015 National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2R 0A8 Tel: (403) Fax: (403) crystal_rothenburger@transcanada.com Filed Electronically Attention: Ms. Sheri Young, Secretary of the Board Dear Ms. Young: Re: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) North Montney Project (Project) Certificate GC-125 Certificate Condition 11 (Condition) Peace Moberly Tract Protection Plan (PMTPP) Board File OF-Fac-Gas-N In accordance with the Condition, NGTL submitted the PMTPP on December 1, 2015, to the National Energy Board (NEB) for its consideration. In developing the plan, NGTL provided drafts of the PMTPP to relevant provincial regulatory agencies as well as the West Moberly First Nation (WMFN) and Saulteau First Nation (SFN) for their review and comment. NGTL intended to address these comments in the final PMTPP filed on December 1, Following the PMTPP filing, NGTL received comments on December 4, 2015, regarding the PMTPP and the Project s Access Management Plan from the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO). NGTL under this cover letter is forwarding these comments to the NEB, WMFN and SFN. In addition to responding to comments on Friday, December 18, 2015, from WMFN and SFN pursuant to the process outlined by the NEB in its letter dated October 27, 2015 (NEB Filing ID: A4U7R2), NGTL will now also address comments from FLNRO in the that filing. If the Board requires additional information with respect to this filing, please contact me at , or by at crystal_rothenburger@transcanada.com. Yours truly, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Original Signed By Crystal Rothenburger Regulatory Project Manager Regulatory Services Enclosure cc: J. McCormick, Donovan and Company T. Thielmann, Devlin Gailus Westaway J. Waterman, British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission K. Harvey, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

2 December 4, 2015 Cindy Grieder, P.Ag. Contract Senior Environmental Planner TransCanada Pipelines Limited 450, 1 st Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 5H1 Re: North Montney Mainline Project - MFLNRO Comments about the Peace Moberly Tract Protection Plan and Access Management Plan. Dear Ms. Grieder, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Peace Moberly Tract Protection Plan (PMTPP) dated September, As you are aware, the Ministry of Forests, Land and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) reviewed the September, 2015 PMTPP and provided TransCanada with comments that were discussed during an October 23, 2015 meeting. As an outcome of that meeting, Karrilyn Vince, Regional Executive Director, Northeast Region, requested additional time for FLNRO to complete a further review of the Access Management Plan as it relates to the Peace Moberly Tract Protection Plan. We would also like to thank you for providing the revised Peace Moberly Tract Protection Plan dated November, 2015, as well as a copy of the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan that the Ecosystems Section was interested in seeing. A review of this additional information has been completed and provided below is feedback for TransCanada s consideration: Peace Moberly Tract Protection Plan It appears as though the November, 2015 PMTPP has changed significantly since the last review by our agency and there now is an element referred to as the Peace Moberly Tract Protection Plan Construction Site Visit Monitoring Program included in the plan, that provides First Nations a role in reviewing implementation of mitigation planned for cultural and environmental values identified in the PMTPP. In addition, this latest version of the PMTPP also includes a Vegetation Baseline and Reclamation Plan. Although a high level review of this revised plan was undertaken, no additional comments related to this new information were generated. On a related note, the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan, which is a component of the PMTPP, was reviewed by Ecosystems and as previously communicated, TransCanada needs to ensure that any additional permits required to facilitate activities outlined in this contingency plan (e.g. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Northeast Region Mailing Address: #400, th Avenue FORT ST JOHN BC V1J 6M7 Phone: Fax: Website:

3 permits required under the Wildlife Act) are secured prior to the commencement of construction activities. Access Management Plan Please find attached comments related to the review of the Access Management Plan for your consideration. Footprint Analysis Although there has been an initial conversation about the scope of the work and some information provided by TransCanada to inform this footprint analysis that was requested by the BC Government, the matter has yet to be closed out. The PMTPP would be enhanced as a document, if there was more information communicated about the project s footprint in it. FLNRO acknowledges the proponents insight that there is no new access being built into the PMT for the project and that access for construction will be via the ROW itself and the shooflies around the bores. That said however, to ensure land use decisions are well informed in the Peace Moberly Tract (PMT), it is requested that the plan be amended to include the following: A visual representation of the proposed footprint within the PMT. Ideally, this would be the alignment sheets with the ortho image background. On these alignment sheets, clearly identify the ROW and any associated infrastructure, including a breakdown of what the new cut disturbance is and any existing disturbance that had been incorporated into the project design. For those access points that intersect with the ROW (ortho and/or air photo imagery suggest there are some significant seismic lines that merge onto the ROW) that the sheets identify what proposed mitigation looks like at those locations to control access. If you have any questions about the review of the identified plans or the comments expressed above, please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss further. Sincerely, Kerry Harvey, R.P. Bio. Senior Ecosystems Biologist Northeast Region Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ph: Cc: Viva Wolf, BC Oil and Gas Commission Duane Chapman, Ministry of Natural Gas Development Attachment: MFLNRO ES AMP Review Comments November Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Northeast Region Mailing Address: #400, th Avenue FORT ST JOHN BC V1J 6M7 Phone: Fax: Website:

4 Access Management Plan (AMP)(May 2015 Version) Review Comments from the MFLNRO Ecosystems Section (Kerry Harvey, Senior Ecosystems Biologist), Northeast Region (Completed November 25, 2015) Section of the Plan Sec. 1.2 Page 2 Figure 1A Table 1B Sec. 2.2 Page 7 Sec. 2.5 Page 9 Comment/Issue Description Document states The AMP objectives are to maintain access within acceptable levels. In order to achieve a lower measure (e.g. rate, proportion, count) of motorized access, one needs to know what the baseline is. It appears that baseline information collected to date has been limited (in terms of survey methods and seasonality of use) and that additional work will be undertaken to address this data gap. Given the project timelines, it is questionable how well informed the baseline date actually will be. It would seem logical that this data would have had to been collected over a significant period of time (years perhaps) and over a range of seasons and periods of use (e.g. hunting seasons etc.). This is a point of concern for MFLNRO for activities within the PMT. For the access consideration flow diagram, it is suggested that if there was no interaction of an existing linear disturbance with the project ROW then there was no need to implement access management. That said, was there any spatial criteria applied here? The issue being that for those disturbances that are in very close proximity to the ROW but did not physically merge onto the ROW it is debatable as to whether or not those incursions actually pose an access management risk. Given this AMP applies also to the PMT, it is recommended that this matter be explored further as a project planning consideration to mitigate project impacts within the PMT. Can the proponent please clarify what specialized equipment is required to create mounds? Is this more in reference to seasonality and what equipment modifications maybe required to facilitate construction during non-frozen ground conditions? Can the proponent please elaborate on which elements are being applied for under Section 58 exactly, and if relevant, why they are not considered under this AMP? This section identifies that there will be significant project delays until operation of the line (e.g. Kahta section between ROW prep and commencement of construction, rough and final clean-up for both the Kahta and Aitken Sections) and that NGTL will consider implementing interim access measures at site specific locations to deter motorized access. Further to this, the plan suggests suitable locations will be identified in consideration of the ability of crews/equipment to access the site to implement access 1

5 Section of the Plan Comment/Issue Description management, the context of the ROW relative to existing disturbance and sensitivity of the area (e.g. PMT, caribou range). MFLNRO recommends that interim measures actually be implemented for those areas deemed sensitive, which would include the PMT. As a point of clarification, the last line in Sec. 2.5 states The proposed construction schedule for the Aitken Creek Section is condensed and interim access management measures are not warranted. This is not in line with comments expressed elsewhere in Sec. 2.5 The Aitken section runs through the PMT and it is stated above in the plan that the PMT is a sensitive area where interim measures may be required. It would be value added here to clarify the intent within the PMT and recognize that the values of the PMT does in fact warrant access management mitigation (even interim measures). Sec Page 12 Sec Page 14 Sec. 3.4 Page 16 Sec. 4.0 Page 19 According to the plan, only 2 aerial surveys have been undertaken to date to inform baseline. Would it not be a good idea to also target those time frames when there would be an increase activity such as hunting season, acknowledging of course using aircraft may not be the best sampling methodology at that time? This section suggests that remote cameras were to be deployed during the spring of What is the status of that sampling; was it completed as planned? What is the plan w.r.t. monitoring the operation of the cameras.they are not fail safe devices so the reviewer is interested in how they will be checked to ensure they are functioning over the period of sampling. This section states Many of the access management measures that will be implemented for the Project will be completed during final clean-up, which occurs in the appropriate season following construction, once backfilled trench material has settled and conditions allow access to the site. Therefore a majority of access management measure will not be implemented for 1 to 3 years after the commencement of construction. Again, as expressed in other comments above, this is likely not appropriate for the PMT, and this issue should be re-examined for that sensitive area. This section states Corrective measures may not be implemented in all cases where access management proves ineffective at a given location. Although this may be appropriate in certain circumstances, MFLNRO would appreciate additional insight as to why corrective measures would not be an automatic response in sensitive areas? It would appear as though that is a necessary mitigation in these situations. 2