ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act)

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) 230 kilovolt International Power Line - Lethbridge, Alberta to Montana Border Applicant Name: Montana-Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) Application Date: 20 December 2005 CEA Act Registration Date: 10 January 2006 National Energy Board (NEB or Board) File Number: CEA Act Law List Trigger: OF-Fac-IPL-M National Energy Board Act subsection 58.11(1) CEA Registry Number: CEA Act Determination Date: 21 March 2007

2 SCREENING SUMMARY Montana-Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) has applied to the National Energy Board (NEB) to obtain a permit to construct and operate the km Canadian portion of a 338 km international power line (Power Line) extending between Lethbridge, Alberta and Great Falls, Montana (Project). The NEB is the Federal Environment Assessment Coordinator for this Project. Transport Canada declared itself as a Responsible Authority and Environment Canada (EC), Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada declared themselves as Federal Authorities who were in the possession of specialist advice. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and a number of interested parties also participated in the environmental assessment process. In December 2005, MATL applied for a 2-km wide corridor for a 123 km Power Line. The southern portion of the Initial Preferred Corridor (IPC) traversed the environmentally sensitive Milk River Ridge region. There were a number of potential adverse environmental effects, both biophysical and socio-economic, that were identified for the IPC. Following numerous information requests from the NEB and comments from EC and ASRD, in October 2006 MATL submitted a Revised Preferred Corridor (RPC) that avoided the environmentally sensitive area. MATL s revised corridor significantly reduced the potential for biophysical effects, by avoiding the Milk River Ridge region. The NEB has considered information provided by MATL, government departments, and the public during its review of the Project. The Board is of the view that provided all commitments and environmental protection measures made by MATL are upheld, and the Board s recommendations are implemented, the proposed Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS Environmental Assessment Process Scope of the Project Factors to be Considered Scope of Factors to be Considered Upstream Facilities Spatial and Temporal Boundaries DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT CONSULTATION Public Consultation carried out by MATL Involvement of other Government Agencies pursuant to the CEA Act Consultation between MATL and Aboriginal Groups Environmental Comments and Concerns Comments Received by the NEB on the draft Environmental Screening Report Views of the NEB METHODOLOGY OF THE NEB S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS Routing Comments on, and differences between, the IPC and RPC Comparison of RPC and Alternative Routes within Segments C and D Project - Environment Interactions Potential Adverse Environmental Effects Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects to be Mitigated through Standard Measures Detailed Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects Mortality of species bird strike collision with Power Lines Contamination of soil and water from wooden poles Disruption of agricultural operations (e.g., loss of crops, potential to reduce crop yield, loss of livelihood, impacts to local spraying business) Potential human health effects Disruption of traditional activities (e.g., hunting, trapping, gathering) of the Kainai and North Piikani First Nations i

4 5.4 Inspections/Monitoring Cumulative Effects Assessment Follow-up Program Recommendations THE NEB S CONCLUSION NEB CONTACT APPENDIX 1: Physical Works and/or Activities APPENDIX 2: Significance Criteria ii

5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AEUB ACD ASRD BMPs Board or NEB CEA Act CCC DFO DU EA EC EMFs EPP ESAs ESR FA GPS Ha ICNIRP IPC kv KP MATL NWPA NEB Act Power Line or Project Alberta Energy Utilities Board Alberta Community Development Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Best Management Practices National Energy Board Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Chin Coulee Corridor Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ducks Unlimited Environmental Assessment Environment Canada Electro-Magnetic Fields Environmental Protection Plan Environmentally Significant Areas Environmental Screening Report Federal Authority Global Positioning System Hectare International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Initial Preferred Corridor Kilovolts Kilometre Post Montana-Alberta Tie Ltd. Navigable Waters Protection Act National Energy Board Act km Canadian portion of a 338 km international power line iii

6 NCC RA RoW RPC SAGE TC TLUOS Nature Conservancy of Canada Responsible Authority Right of Way Revised Preferred Corridor Southern Alberta Group for the Environment Transport Canada Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Studies iv

7 1.0 APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 1.1 Environmental Assessment Process Montana-Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) has applied pursuant to subsection 58.11(1) of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) for a permit to construct and operate the km Canadian portion of a 338 km international power line (Power Line or Project) extending between Lethbridge, Alberta and Great Falls, Montana. Subsection (1) is on the Law List Regulations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) thereby requiring the preparation of this Environmental Screening Report (ESR). The NEB is the Federal Environment Assessment Coordinator for this Project. Pursuant to Section 5 of the Federal Coordination Regulations of the CEA Act, the NEB sent a federal notification letter in January 2006 to seven federal departments to identify their potential involvement in the environmental assessment (EA) process. Their responses are tabulated below: Federal Agency Transport Canada (TC) 1 Environment Canada (EC) Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Health Canada Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada Canadian Transportation Agency Involvement in the EA Process Responsible Authority (RA) Federal Authority in possession of specialist advice (FA) FA FA FA No involvement No involvement 1 TC participated as an RA in this CEA Act assessment of the Project, based on the possibility of being triggered under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. However on 20 March 2007, TC clarified that it still has not yet been able to determine if it actually has a Section 5 trigger under the CEA Act for the Project. TC stated that should it declare a trigger for this Project in the future, TC would make a determination pursuant to subsection 20(1) based on this environmental screening report. Pursuant to the Canada-Alberta Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2005), the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency submitted a letter to the NEB from Alberta Environment indicating that a number of provincial agencies may have interest in the federal EA process. The NEB informed each of these provincial agencies that written submissions would be welcomed. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) was the only provincial agency that confirmed it had an interest in the Project. On 20 December 2005, MATL submitted its application for the Initial Preferred Corridor (IPC) but subsequently informed the NEB in June 2006 that it planned to revise the southern 40 km of the Canadian portion of the Power Line in order to avoid the environmentally sensitive Milk River Ridge region. Accordingly, in October 2006, MATL formally submitted its Revised Preferred Corridor (RPC) which completely avoids the Milk River Ridge region. MATL also made minor routing revisions to the northern portion of the IPC. 1

8 In late November 2006, the NEB sent a letter to interested parties inviting comments on the draft scope of the EA for this RPC and in early December 2006, the NEB informed those parties of the final terms of that scope. The interested parties included federal agencies, ASRD and members of the public that had submitted letters of comment to the NEB. On 21 December 2006, the NEB sent a letter to interested parties inviting comments on the draft ESR. A brief summary of public comments is provided in Section 3.5 and revisions were made to the ESR, as appropriate. The focus of this ESR is on the RPC alignment. A summary of public comments on the IPC alignment is provided in Section Other Processes In addition to the federal NEB process, MATL is required to submit a Needs Application and a Facilities Application to the provincial Alberta Energy Utilities Board (AEUB) for approval. The NEB and AEUB have separate approval processes. Matters concerning compensation not resolved between MATL and affected landowners would be determined by an independent body under provincial legislation. Following any approval that the NEB may grant to MATL, the operation of the proposed Power Line would then come under provincial jurisdiction. The NEB has no involvement with the United States (U.S.) portion of the Power Line. 1.2 Scope of the Project The northern endpoint of the Canadian portion of the Power Line would be connected to an existing power line owned by AltaLink through a new substation just north of Lethbridge. The southern endpoint of the Canadian portion of the Power Line would cross the Canada/U.S. border at a point approximately 20 km southwest of the Town of Milk River. The EA for this Project focuses on the design, construction and operation within a two-km wide corridor of the Canadian segment of the Power Line. The physical works of this Project include the installation of poles, the stringing of wire, the crossing of watercourses, the use of access roads and temporary space, and the construction of a substation. MATL s proposed construction commencement date is September 2007, pending regulatory approvals. Reclamation activities would take place after construction. Following construction, MATL plans to implement a monitoring program that would take place over a two-year period. During the operational phase, MATL would conduct aerial and ground inspections on an annual basis. Any environmental effects associated with the abandonment phase are likely to be similar to those caused by the construction phase. MATL stated that it would adhere to all relevant provincial and federal laws and regulations in force at the time of abandonment. Appendix 1 provides further details of the proposed physical works and activities for the RPC. 2

9 Figure 1 illustrates: the location of the RPC for the total length of the Power Line. Highway 506 is considered the dividing line between the northern and southern portion of the RPC. the location of the IPC for the southern portion of the Power Line. Along two segments of the RPC, MATL has specified two optional routings which are adjacent to, but partially overlap with, the RPC. These segments are referred to as C and D. Refer to Section for additional information on these routes. 1.3 Factors to be Considered The EA will include a consideration of the following factors listed in paragraphs 16(1)(a) to (d) of the CEA Act: (a) the environmental effects of the Project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the Project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; (b) the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a); (c) comments from the public that are received during the EA process; and (d) measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the Project. In addition, pursuant to paragraph 16(1)(e) of the CEA Act, the EA will consider alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means. For this project alternative means refers to routing changes. 3

10 Figure 1 International Power Line 4

11 For further clarity, subsection 2(1) of the CEA Act defines environmental effect as: (a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change that the Project may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species as defined in the Species at Risk Act; (b) any effect of any change referred to in paragraph (a) on (i) health and socio-economic conditions, (ii) physical and cultural heritage, (iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, (iv) any structure, site or thing that is of historical, paleontological, or architectural significance; or (c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change or effect occurs within or outside Canada. 1.4 Scope of Factors to be Considered The EA will consider the potential effects of the proposed Project s spatial and temporal boundaries within which the Project may potentially interact with, and have an effect on components of the environment. These boundaries will vary with the issues and factors considered, and will include: construction, operation, decommissioning, site rehabilitation and abandonment or other undertakings that are proposed by the Proponent or that are likely to be carried out in relation to the physical works proposed by the Proponent, including mitigation and habitat replacement measures; the natural variation of a population or ecological component; the timing of sensitive life cycle phases of wildlife species in relation to the scheduling of the Project; the time required for an effect to become evident; the time required for a population or ecological component to recover from an effect and return to a pre-effect condition, including the estimated degree of recovery; the area affected by the Project; and the area within which a population or ecological component functions and within which a Project effect may be felt. For the purpose of the assessment of the cumulative environmental effects, the consideration of other Projects or activities that have been or will be carried out will include those for which 5

12 formal plans or applications have been made or for which there is certainty that these activities have or will take place. 1.5 Upstream Facilities Upstream facilities (e.g. coal-fired generators, Edmonton Calgary 500 kv power line) have not been included within the EA. The NEB notes that the Project as applied for is not dependent on any new upstream facilities. The application before the NEB is for the construction and operation of the proposed Power Line facilities. The NEB is of the view that upstream facilities are not part of the Project, and as such, the scope of the EA should focus on, and be limited to, the Power Line and its immediate associated facilities. Also, the NEB notes that the export of electricity would require a separate application. 1.6 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries Spatial Boundaries Immediate: Right of Way [RoW] (8 to 32 m) Local: Corridor (2 km) Regional: Beyond Corridor Temporal Boundaries Short-term: Moderate: Long-term: less than a year one to ten years more than ten years 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT Land Use Past, existing or approved projects or activities within and adjacent to the RPC include: roads, railways, military facilities, power lines and substations, oil and gas activities, a wind power plant, agricultural crops, grazing, recreational and park areas. Soils The predominant soil type is a humus-rich, rapidly draining topsoil that is subject to extreme erosion and compaction. Saline soils are also found along the RPC. Environmentally Significant Areas Some portions of the RPC pass through provincial environmentally significant areas (ESAs); however, none of these designated areas have provincial timing restrictions, special temporal limitations or defined mitigation measures attached to the land designation. 6

13 Vegetation This table illustrates vegetation cover along the RPC: Type of Cover Area of assessment of the corridor (ha) % of land cover type within the corridor Area of new disturbance (proposed RoW and substation) (ha) % of impact within the corridor Cultivated land Forage Grassland Shrubs Trees Water/Wetlands Non-Vegetated Disturbed Note: MATL has committed to discontinue construction between 15 April and 31 July in the grassland sections of the RPC to prevent disturbance to migratory birds. The RPC passes through a variety of habitats including steep-sided coulees, riparian zones, wetlands, and grassy plateaus. The RPC also passes through unique grassland landscapes in which rare plants are found based on field surveys carried out in spring and summer of These rare plants include tufted hymenopappus and narrow-leaved goosefoot. Nineteen non-native plant species (noxious/nuisance weeds or invasive species) were also found along the grassland portion of the RPC. Fish and Fish Habitat There are 49 watercourse crossings within the RPC. Two-thirds of the watercourses throughout the region are ephemeral and intermittent. Permanent watercourses include the Milk River and an irrigation canal referred to as P-6 at KP There are 15 water bodies (14 from streams, rivers or canals and one from a reservoir) that have fisheries resource potential. Although fisheries resources are limited along the RPC, there are 28 fish species within the RPC; 26 of the fish species are found within the Milk River. MATL has committed to not enter or disturb the Milk River. Fish species listed pursuant to the Species at Risk Act, Schedule 1 include the St. Mary sculpin and western silvery minnow. Sensitive species as designated by the province include St. Mary sculpin, spoonhead sculpin, northern redbelly dace and sauger. 7

14 Four of the watercourses: the Milk River, an unnamed stream P-20 at KP 113.1, an irrigation canal P-9 at KP 113 and Etzikom Coulee are classified as Class C watercourses and have a restricted activity period as follows: for the first three waterways the restricted activity period is from 1 April to 30 June, and for the fourth, from 1 April to 1 June. Wetlands The Canadian prairies support half the breeding waterfowl in North America; thousands of areas of wetlands and riparian habitat have disappeared due to cultivation and drainage. These wetlands and riparian habitat areas continue to be threatened by development. Federal and provincial governments have policies in place and also participate and support programs relating to wetland and riparian habitat area conservation and enhancement. The proposed route would cross about 40 wetlands or wetland buffer areas (areas within 100 m of a wetland), of which eight are classified of primary importance to EC since they have been identified as a Class C according to the Steward and Kantrud (1971) classification process. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Agricultural areas provide potential habitat for wildlife, but based on field observations and previous studies, appear to be minimally used. Cultivated fields provide good forage opportunities for ungulates and various bird species. MATL conducted and submitted a literature review and wildlife field surveys in 2005 and 2006 for species that may occur near the Power Line. Activities included amphibian call surveys, songbird point counts, burrowing owl call-playback, lek surveys, and incidental ground searches for reptiles. Potential wildlife along the RPC include amphibians, reptiles, birds (waterfowl, raptors, game birds, migratory birds, song birds) and mammals. The Species at Risk listed in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act that may be found along the RPC include: birds (loggerhead shrike, burrowing owl, Sprague s pipit, longbilled curlew, piping plover and greater sage grouse), amphibians (northern leopard frog, western toad) and mammals (swift fox). Burrowing owl and long-billed curlew were observed during field surveys. There are about 40 Species of Special Concern that could potentially occur in the project area. The only sensitive mammal species that was recorded during field surveys was the pronghorn antelope. There were also approximately 20 species, not classified as Species of Special Concern, sighted during field surveys. An active historical sharp-tailed grouse lek was found outside the RPC. Three other historical leks were also visited but there was no evidence of an active lek at those locations. 8

15 Heritage Resources The RPC has several previously recorded archaeological sites and historical resources within or adjacent to the RoW. Socio-economic Description The RPC is situated in the counties of Lethbridge and Warner. There are one hundred and seven landowners along the RPC. The proximity of residences and agricultural structures to the centreline of the RPC was identified over a range of distances commencing with 60 m, which is the recommended distance away from a power line to avoid radio and television interference. There is one occupied residence and one occupied farmstead located within 60 m of the centreline of the RPC. 3.0 CONSULTATION Consultation activities have occurred with the public, government agencies and aboriginal groups as outlined below. 3.1 Public Consultation carried out by MATL The goal of MATL s stakeholder engagement program is to work directly with affected stakeholders throughout the planning, construction and operation of the Power Line to ensure their issues and concerns are consistently understood, fairly considered and effectively addressed. The public involvement focused upon five groups of stakeholders landowners, community residents, representatives of special interest groups, industry and government agencies. The stakeholder engagement process began before the initial application was filed with the NEB in December 2005 and has been ongoing since then. MATL has continued to meet with government agencies, municipalities, landowners and special interest groups to discuss their issues and concerns. These discussions prompted MATL to re-investigate portions of the southern half of the IPC, which was originally analyzed during the second quarter of This investigation and finalized land negotiations with landowners and occupants resulted in the RPC. A ninth public open house was held in Milk River in June 2006 to present revisions to the IPC, as requested by federal and provincial agencies, and local Environmental Non-Government Organizations. Landowners and interested public presented their issues of concern to MATL during the Open Houses and identified other issues during MATL s land negotiation processes. MATL has maintained contact with the counties of Lethbridge and Warner, special interest groups such as the Southern Alberta Group for the Environment (SAGE), Ducks Unlimited (DU), and the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), and government agencies such as EC, ASRD, and DFO. MATL has kept these organizations informed of changes and updates to the Power Line route and impact assessment. 9

16 In response to a request from the public, MATL conducted a preliminary EA for the Chin Coulee Corridor (CCC) which would replace a segment of the northern portion RPC. The purpose of the CCC was to reduce the impact to residences. MATL s preliminary assessment found that the number of residences affected by the CCC would be in fact higher than those affected by the RPC. Further, there would be more potential environmental effects on wildlife and a higher number of archaeological and paleontological sites within the vicinity of the CCC. The NEB is of the view that since MATL did not submit the CCC as an option within its submission, the CCC is not under consideration as an option for this Project. MATL established a Community Advisory Committee in July 2006 to work with stakeholders along the Power Line route to address their concerns, resolve issues and make non-binding recommendations to MATL. The Community Advisory Committee developed recommendations and prepared a written report, which was presented to MATL in mid-september. MATL has responded to each of the ten recommendations. MATL also held three open houses in November 2006 to provide residents and landowners along the RPC, as well as any other interested public, with a face-to-face opportunity to review and discuss the RPC and the design and environmental changes related to the RPC. These open houses were also used to identify any additional stakeholder issues about the Project before the NEB comment period ended. As part of the NEB comment period that extended from 2 November to 1 December 2006, MATL has responded to the comments filed by 1 December 2006 with respect to the RPC. MATL s response focused on the following issues: policy issues, agricultural issues, environment issues, health issues, and other issues. 3.2 Involvement of other Government Agencies pursuant to the CEA Act ASRD stated that they were satisfied with MATL s environmental protection and mitigation measures and commitments. EC stated that conditional on MATL adhering to mitigation and environmental protection measures identified to date, they have not identified areas of significant potential for untoward effects or areas of outstanding concern with respect to federal statutes, regulations, policies and associated program concerns as defined by EC s mandate with the Project as planned. DFO specified a number of mitigation measures and conditions that it would like MATL to follow so that the Project would not be likely to result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. In subsequent correspondence, MATL committed to those measures. 3.3 Consultation between MATL and Aboriginal Groups MATL has a draft Aboriginal consultation policy, which states: MATL works to build long-term relationships in Aboriginal communities through engaging in effective stakeholder, public participation and communication programs. Using an interactive process that engages Aboriginal communities, accurate and concise project information is exchanged with affected communities, thereby enabling the communities to engage meaningfully in decision-making processes and developments that affect or are of concern to them. Focusing 10

17 on effective Aboriginal community engagement identifies win-win situations for MATL, and local communities, while achieving regulatory compliance. Initial attempts by MATL to contact the Kainai First Nation and North Piikani First Nation occurred in August 2005, and discussions continue to document their issues within the context of the Project. Progress has been made with the Kainai First Nation to document their Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Studies (TLUOS), and consultation attempts to do the same with the North Piikani First Nation are ongoing. 3.4 Environmental Comments and Concerns The public comment period on the RPC concluded on 1 December 2006, and the Board received letters of comments representing over 30 landowners and other interested parties. Primary concerns from the public focused on the following potential effects: interference with agricultural operations human and animal health effects electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) property values visual aesthetics increase of weeds cropping limitations electrical interference with communication systems and technology interference with existing infrastructure fire risk increase due to the use of wooden poles archaeological concerns contamination from the leaching of Penta-treated poles damage to wooden poles ineffective communication and consultation between MATL and landowners incomplete EA of Alternative routes located adjacent to the RPC disturbance to wildlife species which have been observed on their property increased air emissions from upstream facilities All of these comments and concerns, except for the last issue, are addressed in Section 5 of this ESR. The last issue will not be addressed as it falls outside the scope of the EA as outlined in Section 1.5 of the ESR. Topics of discussion with SAGE included pole types, routing options along Highway 4, areas closer to Taber, Alberta, and concerns associated with grassland and agricultural fragmentation impacts. SAGE agreed that a re-route around the Milk River Ridge area would reduce their concerns with the Project. SAGE submitted a letter to the NEB on 8 September 2006 stating that 11

18 SAGE is not in a position to speak to the potential environmental and social effects of the transmission line on the affected rural communities. With respect to avoiding a route through the important grasslands on the Milk River Ridge, however, SAGE is satisfied with MATL s proposed course change. DU indicated it had no concerns with the Project given the relocation of the Power Line to the east, away from Stirling Lake, which is an important waterfowl staging area. Further conversations with DU occurred in October 2006, when the proximity of the transmission line to the DU Gundlock Project (located in sections 15 and W4 to the northwest of the town of Warner) was discussed. DU indicated it was not opposed to the location of the Power Line, and it was agreed that bird deflectors would be used to mitigate waterfowl collisions adjacent to the Gundlock Project. The NCC was contacted by telephone in February 2006 and again in July 2006 regarding route revisions. On 28 August 2006, MATL personnel met with NCC to review the 2006 summer field work program and to present the final RPC location. Following the presentation, NCC personnel indicated they were in agreement with the relocation of the Power Line. Ongoing consultation has occurred between MATL and the counties of Lethbridge and Warner from the December 2005 filing to the present, regarding revisions to the IPC, Alternative Routes, and the technical, engineering and environmental details of the Power Line. The County of Lethbridge agreed in May 2006 to the MATL route revisions and to the placement of the Power Line within the County s road allowances. The County of Warner approved the MATL Project and the use of the County s road allowances in defined areas in October The Power Line no longer goes through the County of Cardston. 3.5 Comments Received by the NEB on the draft Environmental Screening Report Following the release of the 21 December 2006 draft ESR, a number of comments were received from federal authorities, the public and MATL. This subsection provides a brief summary of only those comments that provided further information and which resulted in revisions to the ESR. Federal Authorities TC stated that although the draft ESR did not make reference to navigation issues, certain project components may require a Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) approval; more specifically, any crossings on navigable waterways that would be constructed or operational during the open water season. MATL stated in previous submissions that it received information regarding the NWPA approval process and committed to following the process and any recommendations from TC. EC recommended three changes that were implemented in this final screening report: one advocating revised wording in sub-section 3.2, one requesting that a mitigation measure be expanded upon in sub-section under the Disturbance, displacement and mortality to Species at Risk heading and one requesting that an additional commitment be made to Recommendation 3 of the draft ESR within section

19 DFO stated that a number of mitigation measures outlined in a letter addressed to the NEB on 27 December 2006, should be included in the ESR. As MATL has since committed to undertaking those measures, wording has been included within sub-section under the Direct loss, alteration or disruption of fish and fish habitat stating that MATL has committed to following measures outlined by DFO. DFO also provided suggested wording changes within section 2.0 under the Fish and Fish Habitat heading. Further, MATL s commitment to no longer use temporary culverts at fish-bearing stream crossings will reduce the likelihood of potential adverse effects on fish and fish habitat; therefore, DFO has indicated that it will act in a FA capacity and not be triggered as an RA. Consequently the issue of Direct loss, alteration or disruption of fish and fish habitat was moved from sub-section to sub-section Public Biophysical A number of parties stated that an EA was not performed for the substation. MATL did include an EA for the substation within its submissions. The Board did include the substation in the draft ESR; however, the Board has added further details on the substation and potential environmental adverse effects to the ESR. Socio-economic A number of parties raised further concerns around MATL s approach to adequately address the impact of the proposed power line on agricultural operations. These comments include claims that: the impacts of the power line on agricultural operations would be significant because the power line could impact, into perpetuity, the economic viability of farmland; the mitigation measures proposed by MATL are broad assurances as opposed to specific commitments; and compensation would be an inadequate remedy for impacts to agricultural operations. As requested by the NEB, MATL submitted a Management Plan for Addressing Impacts to Agricultural Operations. The ESR has been updated in various sections as a result of this management plan. Concerns were also raised by parties regarding the close proximity of residences to an alternative route within segment D. As a result, there have been some wording changes within Section MATL MATL comments focused on four wording changes within Section 2.0, Description of the Environment, and Appendix 1. It also made a number of commitments to government agencies as mentioned above. 13

20 Regarding the commencement date for construction, MATL stated the proposed date would be altered from April 2007 to September 2007, or possibly June In the event that construction commences after December 2007, MATL has committed to undertaking further work as outlined in the Disturbance to Wildlife sub-section within Section 5 of the ESR. 3.6 Views of the NEB The NEB promotes the undertaking, by regulated companies, of an appropriate level of public involvement, commensurate with the environmental and socio-economic setting, and the nature and magnitude of each project. This statement recognizes that public involvement is a fundamental component of the EA process in order to address both biophysical and socioeconomic impacts. The challenge is to determine the appropriate level of public involvement given the nature and magnitude of the proposed project. The NEB expects a consultation program would, at a minimum: be initiated as soon as possible in the planning and design phase of a project; provide clear, relevant and timely information to potentially affected persons or groups; be accessible to and inclusive of all potentially affected persons or groups; be responsive to the needs, input and concerns of potentially affected persons or groups; and continue throughout the regulatory process, as well as the construction and operation phases of a project. And when reporting on the results of the consultation, the NEB expects an applicant to describe the results of the public consultation conducted to-date for the project, with sufficient detail to demonstrate: that those potentially affected by the project have been adequately consulted; and, that any concerns raised have been considered, and addressed as appropriate. The NEB notes that MATL has accepted that there were problems with communication in the early stages of this Project. This included land agents that were occasionally brusque and blunt with landowners who were themselves upset about the negotiations. It was also unclear in the early stages if concerns raised by landowners and other interested parties had been appropriately considered and addressed. Several months after the initial application was filed with the NEB, there was a notable improvement regarding the quality of the consultation program with additional open houses, supplementary information, progress towards the completion of TLUOS, and the creation of the Community Advisory Committee. This evolution of the consultation program was important to demonstrate that the MATL s consultation program was responsive to the needs, inputs and concerns of landowners and other interested parties. 14

21 The requested permit is for a 2 km wide corridor, and the Board notes that the AEUB will be conducting an additional process to approve the detailed route for the proposed Power Line. The Board also notes MATL s statement that the final decisions on mutually acceptable locations for the placement of line structures on agricultural operations, specifically with regard to irrigation systems, will be determined in consultation with landowners during the RoW acquisition. While specific landowner concerns have not been completely resolved at this point in time, the Board notes the additional recourses available to landowners (i.e., MATL s commitment to work with the landowners, MATL s acknowledgement of the validity of landowner concerns, and MATL s Management Plan for Addressing Impacts to Agricultural Operations including criteria used for implementation of mitigative measures) and is therefore satisfied with MATL s approach to address these outstanding concerns. The NEB is of the view that the consultation program undertaken by MATL is consistent with the requirements of the NEB s October 2005 draft Electricity Filing Manual. The NEB notes MATL s commitment to ongoing public consultation. Should a Permit be issued, the NEB understands that MATL would continue consulting with potentially affected stakeholders prior to, during and after construction of the Power Line, and over the lifetime of the Project. Comments Received by the NEB on the draft Environmental Screening Report: The NEB notes that a number of other comments received from the public were not included within the revisions of the ESR. The NEB is of the view that issues raised in those comments have been addressed by MATL within its submissions and/or would not change the NEB s finding pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(a) of the CEA Act. 4.0 METHODOLOGY OF THE NEB S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Baseline information and sources: The analysis for this ESR is based on MATL s application including its Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and subsequent submissions, information from letters of comment from federal and provincial agencies, landowners and other parties. For more details on how to obtain documents, please contact the Secretary of the NEB at the address specified in Section 7.0 of this report. Methodology of the analysis: Route selection was included in the scope of this EA since it has played a significant role in the environmental review of this Project and is addressed in Section 5.1. In assessing the environmental effects of the Project, the NEB used an issue-based approach. In its analysis within Section 5.2, the NEB identified interactions expected to occur between the proposed project activities and the surrounding environmental elements. Also included were the consideration of potential accidents and malfunctions that may occur due to the Project and any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment. If there were no expected element- Project interactions then no further examination was deemed necessary. Similarly, no further examination was deemed necessary for interactions that would result in positive or neutral 15

22 potential effects. In circumstances where the potential effect was unknown, it was categorized as a potential adverse environmental effect. Section provides an analysis for all potential adverse environmental effects that are normally resolved through the use of standard design or routine mitigation measures. In these cases, mitigation measures are outlined including any commitments made by the proponent. Section provides a detailed analysis for each potential adverse environmental effect which is of public concern, involves non-standard mitigation measures, monitoring or follow-up programs, or requires the implementation of an issue-specific recommendation. The analysis specifies those mitigation measures, ratings for criteria used in evaluating significance, monitoring and/or follow-up programs, views of NEB and any issue-specific recommendations. Section 5.4 addresses inspections and monitoring, Section 5.5 addresses cumulative effects, Section 5.6 addresses follow-up programs and Section 5.7 lists recommendations for any subsequent regulatory approval of the Project. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS 5.1 Routing Comments on, and differences between, the IPC and RPC In the 20 December 2005 application submission, MATL specified its IPC alignment. The public, non-governmental organizations, EC and ASRD had a number of concerns with the southern portion of the IPC since it crossed the environmentally sensitive Milk River Ridge area. The comments can be summarized as follows: concerns on the methodology (including field surveys) used in identifying and assessing impacts to wildlife and rare plants; fragmentation/access/conservation of native prairie habitat; and concerns with respect to a number of species. On 20 October 2006, MATL submitted its RPC. The changes made to the IPC were as follows: the southern portion of the alignment was shifted about 15 to 20 km to the east, thereby avoiding the Milk River Ridge region; the amount of natural grasslands along the corridor was reduced by about 50%; the substation was shifted 300 m northwest of the original location; the new routing alignment is about 7 km longer; and the northern portion of the Power Line was re-routed slightly. 16

23 The NEB is of the view that the RPC mitigates many of the bio-physical environmental concerns raised regarding the IPC Comparison of RPC and Alternative Routes within Segments C and D As outlined in Section 1.2 and Figure 1 of this report there are routing options along two segments along the RPC. Below is information that illustrates some of the differences between the options. For segment C, the Alternative Route is 200 m longer than the RPC and is located approximately 800 m west of it. For segment D, the Alternative Route is 0.7 km longer than the RPC and is located approximately 800 m east of it. Both Alternative Routes have similar biophysical characteristics to the RPC. Regarding potential environmental effects to soils, vegetation, fisheries, wetlands and wildlife habitat, there are very small differences between the two routes. The difference in the number of hectares between the RPC and Alternative Routes is minor; whereas the disturbance to vegetation cover along the Alternative Routes would be less. The Alternative Routes would require the installation of approximately 10 more poles. The information presented in Section 2, Description of the Environment, is also applicable to the Alternative Routes with the only exception being the small area/numerical changes to vegetation cover categories and wetland/water bodies. The use of the Alternative Routes may serve as potential mitigative measures to reduce environmental impacts since they more closely follow road allowances, whereas the RPC are located on quarter section lines, which could be disruptive to the economics of agricultural operations. However, the use of the Alternative Routes also has the potential to exacerbate environmental impacts since at least one of the Alternative Routes is located in close proximity to residences. MATL has performed a 2 km wide assessment for both the RPC and Alternative Routes and has acknowledged that less field surveys were undertaken along the Alternative Routes since there was less potential habitat in those areas. The company has stated that from an environmental perspective, there is very little difference in the environmental effects between the RPC and Alternative Routes along segments C and D. The NEB is of the view that the environmental information provided for the Alternative Routes is sufficient given their overlapping corridors and similar bio-physical environments. 17

24 5.2 Project - Environment Interactions Bio-Physical Environmental Element Project Interaction? Y/N/U Description of Interaction (How, When, Where) Soil and Soil Productivity Y Excavation of soil at pole installation sites and substation Soil spreading Vehicle traffic along RoW during construction and operation Leaching of chemicals from the wooden poles into the soil Vegetation Y Vehicle traffic along RoW during construction and operation Removal of vegetation Reclamation Access during construction and operations Water Quality and Quantity Y Leaching of chemicals from the wooden poles into the surface water Fish and Fish Habitat Y Disturbances to the bed and banks associated with the commissioning/ decommissioning of temporary crossing structures Type of Potential Effect P/Ntl/Adv Potential Adverse Environmental Effect Adv Soil loss and deterioration Soil admixing Soil erosion Soil compaction and rutting Soil moisture conditions Soil contamination from wooden poles Adv Loss of rare plants Introduction of weeds or nuisance vegetation Disturbance and damage to native grassland cover Adv Water contamination from wooden poles Adv Direct loss, alteration or disruption of fish or fish habitat Wetlands Y Installation of poles in wetland areas Adv Damage or destruction of wetlands Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Y Excavation of soil and installation of Adv Mortality of species including Species of Special Status poles and Power Line Human/wildlife interaction (federal, provincial, territorial, Access during construction and local) operations Flyway paths crossing Power Line wires with resulting bird strike collisions Raptors perched on Power Lines preying on wildlife species Birds nesting on Power Line poles Bird strike collisions with Power Lines Disturbance to wildlife 18

25 Socio-Economic Environmental Element Species at Risk pursuant to the Species at Risk Act, Schedule 1 Air Quality N Human Occupancy/ Resource Use Project Type of Inter- Description of Interaction Potential action? (How, When, Where) Effect Y/N/U P/Ntl/Adv Y Excavation of soil and installation of poles and Power Line Access during construction and operations Y The existence of the Power Line would interact with resource development activities (i.e., irrigation systems, aerial crop spraying, fragmentation) Y Corona-generated interference may disrupt communication devices (e.g., two-way radios) and radio and television reception, especially during foul weather. U Invasion of weeds into disturbed areas during Power Line construction Y During the operation of the proposed Power Line, livestock would be exposed to an increase in magnetic field levels and to contamination of soil and water from wooden poles. Heritage Resources U Excavation and installation of poles and Power Line Access during construction and operations Infrastructure U Excavation and installation of poles and Power Line Access during construction and operations Potential Adverse Environmental Effect Adv Disturbance, displacement and mortality to Species at Risk Adv Disruption of agricultural operations (e.g., loss of crops, potential to reduce crop yield, loss of livelihood, impacts to local spraying business) Adv Interference with communication devices Interference with radio and television reception Interference with global positioning system (GPS) equipment Adv Potential to reduce crop yield. Refer to the Vegetation section. U Health impacts on livestock. Refer to the sections on Soil and water contamination from wooden poles and Human health effects Adv The loss of or damage to previously unidentified heritage resources Adv Interference with existing infrastructure 19

26 Other Environmental Element Project Type of Inter- Description of Interaction Potential action? (How, When, Where) Effect Y/N/U P/Ntl/Adv Traditional Land and Resource Use U Excavation and installation of poles and Power Line Access during construction and operations Human Health/ Aesthetics Y Visual Aesthetics: The proposed Power Line would be visible from some areas and would affect the visual aesthetics of the environmental setting, which in turn may also affect local property values. Y EMFs: Operation of the proposed Power Line would result in an increase in magnetic field levels; people in proximity to the proposed Power Line would be exposed to these levels. Y Noise levels associated with the new substation located just north of Lethbridge. Overhead conductors of proposed Power Line could emit audible noise, especially during periods of foul weather. Accidents/Malfunctions Y Petroleum spills from equipment during construction Fire on the RoW Excavated material flowing into watercourses Propane and petroleum spills during operations Effects of the Environment on the Project Y Meteorological effects on poles and Power Line Legend: Y (Yes); N (No); U (Uncertain); P (Positive); Ntl (Neutral); Adv (Adverse) Potential Adverse Environmental Effect Adv Disruption of traditional activities (e.g., hunting, trapping, gathering) of the Kainai and North Piikani First Nations Adv Degradation of the visual environment and reduction in property values U Potential human health effects Adv Increased noise levels with potential for disturbance at the substation Increased noise levels with potential for disturbance along the Power Line Adv Damage or contamination to vegetation, soil and water due to an accident or malfunction Adv Damage of the above-ground facilities caused by extreme environmental factors 20