part d nisga`a nation - Province of British Columbia

Transcription

Proposed Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project
PART D
NISGA’A NATION
April 2014
Nisga’a Nation
12.0
April 2014
NISGA’A NATION
This section of the Application provides information on consultation with Nisga’a Nation including key
issues and concerns regarding the proposed Project. This section also provides information on the
potential proposed Project effects on Nisga’a Nation interests.
12.1
Consultation
12.1.1
Background Information
The interests of Nisga’a Nation are set out in and governed by the NFA – a modern treaty to which the
Governments of BC and Canada are also parties. The NFA defines Nisga’a Nation’s rights with respect to
several categories of lands, including Nisga’a Lands (an area of land that Nisga’a Nation have a
fee-simple interest in), the Nass Wildlife Area and the Nass Area.
WCGT developed the Aboriginal Consultation Plan to provide a framework for the consultation approach
with potentially affected Aboriginal groups and Nisga’a Nation. All commitments, principles and
approaches referred to in the Aboriginal Consultation Plan apply to consultation with Nisga’a Nation.
12.1.1.1
Nisga’a Final Agreement
The NFA, a constitutionally-binding, tripartite agreement among Nisga’a Nation, BC and Canada became
effective in May 2000 following many years of negotiations. Under the NFA, approximately 2,000 km of
Crown land was transferred to Nisga’a Nation and Nisga’a Nation has substantial treaty rights defined in
2
the NFA throughout the Nass Area, which covers nearly 27,000 km (BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations
and Reconciliation [BC MARR 2013], NLG 2013). The NFA signing marked BC’s first modern-day land
claims agreement (BC MARR 2013).
The NFA provides certainty with respect to the rights and obligations of all parties within the Nass Area as
well as Nisga’a Nation’s right of self-government, providing NLG law-making authority and jurisdiction
over Nisga’a Lands as defined under the NFA (AMEC 2011b, Centre for First Nations Governance 2013).
The NFA outlines Nisga’a Nation rights and title on Nisga’a Lands, the Nass Wildlife Area (NWA) and the
Nass Area.
Specifically, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act provides information on the nature of the NFA as well as
Section 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982.
Chapter 2 of the NFA sets out various general provisions, which include the following:
NATURE OF AGREEMENT
1. This Agreement is a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and
35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
...
NISGA'A SECTION 35 RIGHTS
23. This Agreement exhaustively sets out Nisga'a section 35 rights, the geographic extent of
those rights, and the limitations to those rights, to which the Parties have agreed, and those rights
are:
a. the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, as modified by this Agreement, in
Canada of Nisga'a Nation and its people in and to Nisga'a Lands and other lands and
resources in Canada;
b. the jurisdictions, authorities, and rights of Nisga'a Government; and
c. the other Nisga'a section 35 rights.
Page 12-1
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
MODIFICATION
24. Notwithstanding the common law, as a result of this Agreement and the settlement legislation,
the aboriginal rights, including the aboriginal title, of Nisga'a Nation, as they existed anywhere in
Canada before the effective date, including their attributes and geographic extent, are modified,
and continue as modified, as set out in this Agreement.
25. For greater certainty, the aboriginal title of Nisga'a Nation anywhere that it existed in Canada
before the effective date is modified and continues as the estates in fee simple to those areas
identified in this Agreement as Nisga'a Lands or Nisga'a Fee Simple Lands.
Chapter 10 of the NFA includes obligations of the Province of BC in respect of environmental
assessments that may affect Nisga’a interests. Key provisions are section 6 and sections 8(e) and (f)
which state:
6. If a proposed project that will be located off Nisga'a Lands may reasonably be expected to
have adverse environmental effects on residents of Nisga'a Lands, Nisga'a Lands or Nisga'a
interests set out in this Agreement, Canada or British Columbia, or both, as the case may be, will
ensure that Nisga'a Nation:
a. receives timely notice of, and relevant available information on, the project and the
potential adverse environmental effects;
b. is consulted regarding the environmental effects of the project; and
c. receives an opportunity to participate in any environmental assessment under federal
or provincial laws related to those effects, in accordance with those laws, if there may be
significant adverse environmental effects.
...
8. All environmental assessment processes referred to in this Agreement will, in addition to the
requirements of applicable environmental assessment legislation:
...
e. assess whether the project can reasonably be expected to have adverse
environmental effects on residents of Nisga'a Lands, Nisga'a Lands, or Nisga'a interests
set out in this Agreement and, where appropriate, make recommendations to prevent or
mitigate those effects;
f. assess the effects of the project on the existing and future economic, social and cultural
well-being of Nisga'a citizens who may be affected by the project;
To assist the Crown in meeting its obligation of Chapter 10, WCGT is required to report on proposed
Project consultation activities with Nisga’a Nation as well as potential Project effects on Nisga’a interests,
measures to prevent or mitigate adverse effects on residents of Nisga’a Lands, Nisga’a Lands or Nisga’a
interests, and any agreements between WCGT and Nisga’a Nation or a Nisga’a village concerning
potential effects.
12.1.1.2
Project Location in Relation to Nisga’a Lands, the Nass Wildlife Area and Nass
Area as Defined in Nisga’a Final Agreement
The Nasoga Gulf route and the Kitsault alternate traverses Nisga’a Lands, the NWA and the Nass Area.
The Kitsault route does not cross Nisga’a lands, however, this route traverses the NWA and the Nass
area. Information on the alignment of the Nasoga Gulf route and the Kitsault alternate through this area is
provided in Section 1.0. Figure 12.1 shows Nisga’a Lands, the Nass Area and the NWA under the NFA in
relation to the proposed Project.
Page 12-2
r
s s Rive
British Columbia
Ro
¯
Mount Edziza
Provincial
Park
Spatsizi Plateau
Wilderness
Provincial Park
PEACE RIVER
REGIONAL
DISTRICT Fires t ee
iR
ive r
lR
iv e
r
STIKINE
REGIONAL
DISTRICT
Du
t
Tatlatui
Provincial
Park
Ningunsaw
Provincial
Park
37
V
U
M
u sk
abo
o Cre
ek
KITIMAT-STIKINE
REGIONAL
DISTRICT
S
k
n
ee
a
r
ive
R
g
in
Bell-i
rv
iv
e
R
r
iver
NassR
Hanna-Tintina
Conservancy
Stewart
Swan Lake
Kispiox River
Provincial Park
!
BULKLEY-NECHAKO
REGIONAL
DISTRICT
KP 550
KP 600
Alaska
(U.S.A)
Alice Arm
!
!
K5B
KP 680.4
.
!
."
!
)
!
Kitsault
Larcom
Lagoon
Conservancy
KP 622
Cranberry
Junction
.
!
KP 650
Kispiox!
. KP 650
!
KP 50
Gitlaxt'aamiks
!
Gitwinksihlkw!
Nisga'a
Mem oria l La va Bed
Pr ovincial Par k
NISGA'A
.
!
Gingolx
Laxgalts'ap
!
Hazelton
.
!
r
Ceda
KP 700
!
!
K5A
KP 750.93
."
!
)
KP 100
Seven Sisters
Protected Area
ka
Kitsum l u m River
New Hazelton
!
!
16
V
U
Kitwanga
eek
!
Cr
Ksi Xts'At'Kw/Stagoo
Conservancy
Babine River
Corridor
Provincial Park
.
!
.
!
Kitseguecla
Seven Sisters
Provincial
Park
!
Ksi'x Anmaas
Conservancy
.
!
.
!
!
.
!
KP 50
Kts'Mkta'Ani/
Union Lake
Conservancy
Lax Kw'alaams
Khutzeymateen
Inlet West
Conservancy
SKEENA-QUEEN
CHARLOTTE REGIONAL
DISTRICT
!
Lax Kwax/Dundas
and Melville Islands
Conservancy
. KP 150
!
Khutzeymateen
Provincial
Park
Usk
!
Terrace
!
Khyex
Conservancy
!
Tazdli Wyiez
Bin/burnie-shea
Provincial Park
Lakelse Lake
!
!
BRITISH
COLUMBIA
!
Fort
St. John !
AB
Dawson
Creek
Pac
!
ific
Prince
Rupert
Oce
an
t8018_Fig12_01_Nisgaa_and_Nass_A.mxd
Application Corridors
Fort
Nelson
!
!
Prince
George
Williams !
Lake
Kamloops
Cypress to Cranberry Route
!
Kitsault Route
Kitsault Marine Route
Nasoga Route
Nasoga Marine Route
Alternate Route
892
V
U
Highway
First Nation Land
Railway
Park/Protected Area
Road
Watercourse
Waterbody
Municipality
FIGURE 12-1
NASS AREA,
NASS WILDLIFE AREA
AND NISGA'A LANDS
Treaty Settlement Land
Conservancy Area
SCALE: 1:1,000,000
Nass Wildlife Area
Nass Area
0
5 ! 10
15
20
25
km
(All Locations Approximate)
NAD83 BC Albers Route current to February 5, 2014
! National Imagery and Mapping
Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants, derived from Natural Resources Canada 2008; Highways/Roads and Railways: United States
Agency 2000; Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004; Municipalities and Regional Districts: BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2007; Populated Places: Natural
Resources Canada 2010; First Nation Land: Government of Canada 2014; Treaty Settlement Land: IHS Inc. 2013; Parks/Protected Areas, Conservancy Areas: BC Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2008.
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product
or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.
PROPOSED WESTCOAST CONNECTOR
GAS TRANSMISSION PROJECT
APRIL 2014
8018
Mapped By: SB
Checked By: JW
Nisga’a Nation
12.1.2
April 2014
Summary of Consultation Activities
The following sections report on the results of the Aboriginal Consultation Plan (posted on the BC EAO
website) for Nisga’a Nation and include Nisga'a Nation as represented by the NLG and, to the extent
directed by NLG, the following villages: Nisga'a Village of Gitlaxt'aamiks; Nisga'a Village of Laxgats'ap;
Nisga'a Village of Gitwinksihlkw; and Nisga'a Village of Gingolx.
The following provide the link to the BC EAO website for the WCGT Aboriginal Consultation Plan:
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p385/1379020416245_84e6ca799865ef4e8b1c2ed72677
ac5d075ed3d665c32a97beb47285c01db87d.pdf.
WCGT developed the Aboriginal Consultation Plan to provide a framework for the consultation approach
with potentially-affected Aboriginal communities. Nisga’a Nation consultation was designed having regard
to rights and interests of Nisga’a under the NFA. Commitments, principles and approaches referred to in
the Aboriginal Consultation Plan apply to consultation with Nisga’a Nation.
As part of the Nisga’a consultation activities, WCGT is consulting with NLG and the following Nisga’a
communities:
•
Nisga’a Village of Gitlaxt'aamiks;
•
Nisga’a Village of Laxgalts’ap;
•
Nisga’a Village of Gitwinksihlkw; and
•
Nisga’a Village of Gingolx.
Feedback and input received during consultation activities with the Nisga’a has been integrated into the
assessment and contributed to the development of the Application. As consultation continues throughout
the Application review process, WCGT will continue to engage with the Nisga’a and discuss specific
treaty interests, potential effects of the proposed Project and measures to avoid or mitigate anticipated
adverse effects.
12.1.2.1
Community Profile
Nisga’a Nation is a self-governing First Nation in northwestern BC comprising four Nisga’a villages:
Gitlaxt'aamiks (New Aiyansh); Gitwinksihlkw (Canyon City); Laxgalt’sap (Greenville) and Gingolx
(Kincolith). Nisga’a Nation includes approximately 5,500 citizens, about half of whom reside in these four
communities (NLG et al. 2000).
Nisga’a Nation has a matrilineal system of lineage based on the wilp. All Nisga’a members belong to one
of four groups (pdeek), a very large family who share common ancestors. Membership in a pdeek is
matrilineal. The major pdeek crests are raven/frog (Ganada), wolf/bear (Laxgibuu), killer whale/owl
(Gisk’aast) and eagle/beaver (Laxsgiik). Cultural practices and customs (e.g., feasts, totem pole raising,
stone moving, weddings, funerals, dances, gatherings, games, drumming, and adaawks [oral histories])
are important to Nisga’a Nation and its citizens. Nisga’a adaawak are traditional histories about the
Nisga’a people and their home (the Nass Valley). Some of these stories serve to answer questions about
animals and plants in the region. There are thousands of Adaawak, which are considered property and
belong to individual wilps. Some Adaawak belong to all Nisga’a, such as stories of Txeemsim bringing
light to the world.
NLG was previously known as Nisga’a Tribal Council, which was a governing coalition composed of the
band governments of the Nisga’a people. This changed in 2000 with the signing of the NFA. A significant
proportion of Nisga’a also live in the BC urban centres of Terrace, Prince Rupert and Vancouver, which
are referred to under the NFA as Nisga’a Urban Locales (NLG et al. 2000).
Nisga’a Nation governance and administration is provided by NLG and the four Nisga’a Village
governments. Several Nisga’a Nation laws, regulations and policies have been enacted in the areas of
forestry, fisheries, wildlife and lands. NLG also co-manages fishery and wildlife resources in collaboration
Page 12-4
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
and coordination with the provincial and federal governments, via the Nass Wildlife Committee and the
Joint Fisheries Management Committee (AMEC 2011a). The Nisga’a Land Use Plan (NLG 2002) was
developed to provide guidance to Nisga’a Nation in land use decision-making. The Nisga’a Land Use
Plan has designated agriculture, botanical, silviculture, wildlife and archaeological zones within Nisga’a
Lands (NLG 2002). The system of land ownership lays out the rules of access to the rich natural
resources of the Nisga’a Lands (NLG 2013).
12.1.2.2
Traditional Land and Resource Use
Nisga’a Nation people have historically and continue to inhabit and use the area in and around the Nass
River (NLG 2002). The lives of Nisga’a Nation people are closely tied to the Nass Valley region and its
resources. A variety of wildlife, birds, fish, plants, berries, mushrooms and trees for nutritional, medicinal,
construction, economic and ceremonial purposes are harvested. Harvesting activities in the Nass Area
include: hunting and trapping game for food and fur; fishing; and plant gathering. A high level of Nisga’a
resource use continues to occur; the 2001 Aboriginal Peoples Survey recorded that 21% of Nisga’a
hunted, with 92% hunting for food, 50% of Nisga’a fished, with 88% of those fishing for food and 28% of
Nisga’a gathered wild plants, with 82% using the plants for food. Nisga’a citizens’ harvest is based on the
seasonal availability of flora and fauna species (AMEC 2011a). For example, eulachon return at the end
of winter/beginning of spring from the oceans to the river estuaries, particularly the estuary at the mouth
of the Nass River (referred to as Fishery Bay).
Nisga’a Nation has a specific water volume reservation, referred to as the Nisga’a Water Reservation
3
under the NFA, of 300,000 dm of water per year from the Nass River and other streams wholly or
partially within Nisga’a Lands for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes. Streams specified under
this section of the NFA by the percentage of allowable water volume use include Scowban Creek,
Ishkheenickh River, Ksemamaith Creek, Kshadin Creek, Tseax River, Kwinatahl River, Tchitin River and
Ksedin Creek (NLG et al. 2000).
Traditional uses and activities also occur at Bear Glacier Provincial Park (BC Ministry of Water, Land and
Air Protection 2003).
Trails and Travelways
Genim Sgeenix (Grease Trail) is a traditional trail used by Nisga'a Nation with specific protection
recognized under the NFA (NLG et al. 2000). This includes one section of approximately 1 ha along the
Grease Trail where the trail crosses the Cranberry River and is preserved in an undisturbed state. At the
request of NGL/Nisga'a Nation, BC agreed to designate a second section of the historic Grease Trail near
the site of Gitlax'aws (Grease Harbour) on Nisga'a Lands as a provincial heritage site (NLG et al. 2000).
The Genim Sgeenix (Grease Trail) on the upper Nass River is the best known of the many-named Grease
trails, which were used to transport eulachon grease, since its exclusive purpose was for trading eulachon
grease. This trail follows the banks of the Cranberry River, continuing to the northern shore of Kitwancool
Lake, which it follows before continuing to the Skeena River (Hirsch 2003). The Nass River was also an
important travelway used in winter to travel to Tsim-golth-l’angsin (Fishery Bay) while the ice was still
frozen (Hirsch 2003).
Habitation Sites
Nisga’a habitation sites were present and continue to exist in the following locations whose English
names have been replaced by Nisga’a language names:
•
Gitwinksihlkw (Canyon City);
•
Laxgalts'ap (Greenville);
•
Gingolx (Kincolith); and
•
Gitlaxksiip (Grease Harbour); and Wii LaxKap (New Aiyansh).
Page 12-5
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Nisga’a habitation sites also were present and continue to exist at the following reserves: X'anmas
(Kinnamax I.R. No. 15); Txaalaxhatkw (Tahahaat I.R. No. 16); X’uji (Georgie I.R. No. 17); Sgamagunt
(Scamakounst I.R. No. 19); Gwinmilit (Kinmelit I.R. No. 20); Xlukwskw (Slooks I.R. No. 21); Ksi Xts' at'kw
(Staqoo I.R. No. 22); Xts'init (Ktsinet I.R. No. 23); Gits'oohl (Gitzault I.R. No. 24); T' ak' uwaan (Tackuan
I.R.s No. 26 and 26A); Ks wan (Kshwan I.R.s No. 27 & 27A); Lax Bilak (Lakbelak I.R. No. 38); Lax Bilak
(Lakbelak Creek I.R. No. 39); Lax Bilak (Lakbelak Lake I.R. No. 40); Xmaat'in (Dogfish Bay I.R. No. 42);
and Wil Milit (Pearse Island I.R. No. 43). Lax Masgwit (Red Bluff I.R. No. 88) is also a habitation site and
the Nisga’a name has been recorded in the BC geographic names information system under the NFA
(NLG et al. 2000).
Old Aiyansh was rebuilt to become New Aiyansh after flooding of the Nass River in 1961 devastated the
original village.
The Nass River ties the four Nisga’a villages to each other and Nisga’a Lands to the sea
(NLG et al. 2000).
Hunting
During winter, Nisga’a Nation members harvest the following wildlife species: rabbit; beaver; porcupine;
marmot; groundhog; fisher; marten; mink; weasel; and grouse. In spring, species harvested include:
moose; bear; beaver; seal; and sea lion, in addition to grouse, herring gull, duck and geese. In summer,
moose, bear, deer and mountain goat are harvested, as well as duck, grouse and geese. Moose, bear,
mountain goat, deer, lynx, porcupine, beaver, rabbit, duck and geese are primarily harvested during fall
(AMEC 2011a).
2
Under the NFA, Nisga’a citizens have the right to harvest wildlife in the NWA, an area (16,101 km )
surrounding Nisga’a Lands and to harvest migratory birds within the Nass Area. The Nisga’a use
traditional and modern methods to harvest wildlife within the NWA for food, ceremonial and social
purposes. The right to hunt designated species under Schedule A of the NFA, including grizzly bears,
mountain goats and moose, is allocated under the NFA. The hunting rights are allocated for domestic
purposes and the Nisga’a citizens have the right to trade or barter wildlife with other Aboriginal groups
and/or amongst themselves (AMEC 2013b).
Fishing
Nisga’a Nation members place high value on resources from fisheries for cultural, economic, ecological
and social reasons. Salmon and eulachon, in particular, are central to Nisga’a Nation history, economy
and way of life (AMEC 2011a). Salmon are harvested from the Nass River for subsistence and trade.
Historically, Nisga’a trading practices extended into the interior and ranged up and down the coast.
Eulachon are also harvested from the Nass River. Eulachon are a mainstay of Nisga’a culture and a
historic staple of Nisga’a trade. They are also referred to as candlefish because, when dried, they retain
enough oil to burn like candles (NLG et al. 2000).
The Nass River (K’alii Aksim Lisims) flows from the headwaters at Magoonhl Lisims to the sea at Gingolx.
It is the spawning grounds of wild salmon, steelhead and eulachon, and is considered:
“one of the healthiest and most abundant river systems in the world.” (AMEC 2011a, NLG 2013).
The NFA ensures the right of the Nisga’a people to fish throughout the Nass Area. Under the treaty, the
Nisga’a harvest fish in the Nass Area (NLG et al. 2000). Nisga’a fishing rights ensure access to Nisga’a
traditional territory and the marine waters of the Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet. Known as the
2
Nass Area, this region encompasses 26,838 km of northwest BC (Figure 12.1). Nisga’a Nation harvests
and sells salmon in accordance with the NFA. Much of Nisga’a salmon harvest occurs along the Nass
River and estuary. Sockeye and pink salmon have the highest harvest among Nisga’a citizens
(AMEC 2011b). The 2011-2012 Nisga’a annual fishing plan (NLG 2011) indicates the location of Nisga’a
harvest of oolichan to occur between Fishery Bay (near the Village of Laxgalts’ap) and Red Bluff along
the Nass River.
Fisheries resources are harvested by season. In winter, eulachon is harvested. In spring, eulachon,
herring, steelhead, halibut, spring salmon, cockle, clam, giant Pacific chiton and abalone are traditionally
Page 12-6
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
harvested. In summer and fall, ling cod, snapper, sablefish, sockeye, and coho, pink and chum salmon
are harvested. Shellfish are also harvested during fall (AMEC 2011b).
A fishing site is present at Ts'im Anwiihlist (Grease Harbour) (NLG et al. 2000). Another important fishery
exists at Tsim-golth-l’angsin (Fishery Bay), the estuary of the Nass River. The Nisga’a catch eulachon at
this site at the end of the winter before the river ice breaks up. Eulachon found at Fishery Bay are
superior in size and quality to any other in the world (Hirsch 2003).
Nisga’a Nation has rights to harvest intertidal bivalves (including cockle, littleneck clam, butter clam,
mussels and manila clam) in the northern part of Observatory Inlet extending to the southern portion of
Alice Arm as per Appendix I of the NFA (AMEC 2011b).
The NFA defines the rights and responsibilities of Nisga’a Nation and NLG with regard to managing,
harvesting and enhancing the Nass River watershed fishery resources (AMEC 2011b). Nisga’a Nation
have the collectively held right to harvest fish and aquatic plants for domestic (i.e., food, ceremonial and
social) purposes, subject to conservation and safety measures. According to the NFA, aquatic plants
include keIp, marine flowering plants, benthic and detached algae, brown algae, red algae, green algae,
and phytoplankton (AMEC 2011b).
The definition of fish in the NFA includes the following, all of which are currently fished by Nisga’a Nation:
fish, including anadromous fish; shellfish, crustaceans, and marine animals; the parts of fish, shellfish,
crustaceans and marine animals; the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat, juvenile stages and adult stages
of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals (AMEC 2011b).
Within the Nass River Watershed, streams designated under the Nisga’a Angling Guide License listed in
the NFA (NLG et al. 2000) include the Bell-Irving River, Bowser River, Burton Creek, Cranberry River,
Kinskuch River, Kiteen River, Kwinageese River, Meziadin River, Nass River, Oweegee Lake, Welda
Creek and the Tchitin River. Within the Portland Canal, Bear River is also included, as well as the Illiance
and Kitsault rivers at Observatory Inlet (NLG et al. 2000).
The Nisga’a Land Use Plan (NLG 2002) also considers riparian areas important to fish habitat. The plan
has stated the intention to further develop policies to protect and assess the effects of land uses and
development activities on Nisga’a fishery values (AMEC 2011b).
Trapping
Trapping activities are recognized in the NFA, including in areas outside of Nisga’a Lands. Provisions in
the NFA and in accordance with provincial and federal laws allow Nisga’a Nation members the right to
trap (AMEC 2011b). These provisions include that any unregistered trap lines in Nisga’a Lands are
registered to Nisga’a Nation, that trap lines can be transferred in the NWA to Nisga’a Nation,
maintenance of ownership by Nisga’a citizens for trap lines outside of Nisga’a Lands, and that trapping on
Nisga’a Lands is regulated in the same manner as fee simple lands (NLG et al. 2000).
Plant Gathering
Nisga’a citizens harvest and consume a variety of plants, berries and mushrooms as part of their diet and
for medicinal uses within Nisga’a Lands. Nisga’a Nation has specific rights to regulate and manage pine
mushroom harvest on Nisga’a Lands (AMEC 2011b).
The following plants are harvested in spring: seaweed; Labrador tea; fern; cow parsnip; fireweed;
crowberry; and t’ipyees (lavaberry/stonecrop berry). In summer, many plants and berries are harvested as
they ripen, including salmonberry, strawberry, soapberry, raspberry, elderberry, gooseberry, thimbleberry,
huckleberry, blueberry, hawthorn berry, saskatoon berry, hemlock (inner bark), red and yellow cedar,
birch, riceroot, skunk cabbage, wild celery, bulrush, nettle, fern and seaweed. In winter, Labrador tea,
crabapple, fireweed, rosehip, salal berry, bearberry, squashberry and cranberry are harvested
(AMEC 2011b).
Pine mushrooms, a popular delicacy in Asia, are a valuable resource found in Nisga’a forests that are
harvested seasonally (AMEC 2011b). Locations of specific harvesting areas are generally not disclosed
as they are confidential. There is a general reference to pine mushroom harvest in the area of Kwinamuck
Page 12-7
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Lake (2 km south of Alice Arm Road), a Kitsault Forest Service Road (NLG 2002). This area is also
designated as Area B (Nisga’a citizens only harvest) in the Nisga’a Botanical Forest Products Harvest
Area Map from the Nisga’a Land Use Plan (AMEC 2011b).
The pine mushroom industry is supported by a small group of industrial resource processing firms
(Ignas 2003).
“There are numerous tree species in Nisga’a forests, including “an abundance of cedar, hemlock,
Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine, balsam, and cottonwood. From these forests, the Nisga’a people
have always harvested bark for baskets and hats, and wood for fire, dwellings, canoes, and the
poles that grace their villages.” (NLG et al. 2000).
Nisga’a Nation also owns timber rights on Nisga’a Lands and Lisims Forest Resources LLP manages
Nisga’a forest resources on behalf of Nisga’a Nation. This company is improving the market for Nisga’a
forest resources, which include hemlock, balsam fir, cedar, spruce, deciduous trees and non-timber forest
products (NTFPs), such as pine mushrooms (AMEC 2011b).
Gathering Places
The main gathering place is the 10 km stretch of coastline used for the eulachon fishery between Red
Bluff and Fishery Bay at the mouth of the Nass River. Halpin and Seguin (1990) state that:
“...the greatest aboriginal trading centre on the northern Northwest Coast was at the mouth of the
Nass river during the eulachon fishing season in the early spring. Tlingit, Haida, Gitksan, and
Nishga from the upper Nass converged each February on the lower Nass River from Red Bluff to
Fishery Bay to fish and trade with the coastal Nishga and Southern Tsimishian who owned fishing
stations there.”
Areas Identified as Being of Sacred Value
A number of areas have been identified and described by NLG (2013) as areas of sacred value. The
following provides information on these areas as well as Nisga’a Nation belief system.
K’alii Aksim Lisims (the Nass River) flows through a land of mountains and dense forests on Canada’s
Pacific Coast. The Nisga'a people have lived in the Nass River Valley since before recorded time. Long
ago, Txeemsim was sent to help the Nisga'a. When Txeemsim found that they lived in darkness, he
brought sunlight to the Earth. He made the tides and mountains, and provided many gifts, including the
animals, fire and K’alii-Aksim-Lisims. Today, each bend and turn in the Nass River still follows the path of
Txeemsim’s journey.
Sgaanisim Xhlaawit (Vetter Peak): When the Great Flood occurred, Nisga'a Nation saved themselves in
rafts and canoes. To prevent being swept away, they tied their vessels to the four highest peaks in
Nisga'a Nation territory. These peaks, including Sgaanisim Xhlaawit, are known as the Saviour
Mountains.
Wil luu-wanhl hayatskw (Where the Copper Shields Are Painted): Located in K’alii-Aksim-Lisims
(the Nass River) and hidden from view during spring runoff, these ancient petroglyphs are thought to be
reproductions of copper hayatskw, which represented great wealth and prestige. Likenesses of four
copper hayatskw are visible at Wil luu-wanhl hayatskw.
Wil Ksi-Baxhl Mihl (Volcano): As the Nisga’a people watched molten lava cover over their villages,
Gwaaxts’agat (a powerful supernatural being) suddenly emerged to block the lava’s flow. For days,
Gwaaxts’agat blew on the lava with its great nose. Finally, the lava cooled and Gwaaxts’agat retreated
into the mountain where it remains to this day.
Sganisim Laxswa (Mt. Hinkley): Located near the tip of the Portland Canal, Sganisim Laxswa is one of
four Saviour mountains where Nisga'a sought refuge during the Great Flood. Some say that it is still
possible to see ropes embedded in the rock of these peaks where Nisga'a people tied their canoes.
Laxmihl (Lava Beds): Canada’s last volcanic eruption occurred in the Nass Valley approximately
260 years ago. The lava destroyed everything in its path, sparked fires in the surrounding forests and
Page 12-8
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
covered two Nisga'a villages. More than 2,000 people perished. Today, the vast lava beds still dominate
Nisga'a Lands. They serve as a memorial to those who lost their lives and as a reminder of the
importance of kwhlixhoosa’anskw (respect) for both the natural world and the wisdom of the elders.
Anhluut'ukwsim Laxmihl Angwinga'asanskwhl Nisga'a (the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park) is
designated as a provincial park, with Nisga'a history and culture promoted as the primary cultural features
of the park (NLG et al. 2000). Other ‘Sites of Cultural and Historic Significance” designated under the
NFA (NLG et al. 2000) include: Magoonhl Lisims (Nass Lake), an approximately 0.75 ha site located on a
small peninsula on the east side of Nass Lake; Treaty Creek, an approximately 1 ha site surrounding a
large rock outcrop found along the right natural boundary of Treaty Creek; and a site at the mouth of Ksi
Galsgiist (Kelskiist Creek), approximately 1 ha in size (NLG et al. 2000).
Approximate distances and directions of specific geographic areas known to be used by NLG for
traditional land and resource use in relation to the proposed route were determined based on the
information compiled through available literature and are provided in Table 12-1.
TABLE 12-1
NISGA’A NATION TRADITIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE USE
Nasoga Gulf Route
Approximate Distance and Direction from the Proposed Project
Kitsault Route
Trails/Travelways
5.6 km west of KP 652.0 to 1.9 km west of
KP 626.0 to 28.7 km south of KP 570.0 to 65.7 km
southeast of KP 631.0
Habitation Sites
2.4 km west of KP 658.0
3.9 km north of KP 677.8
Hunting Areas
Project Footprint
Fishing Areas
211 km north of KP 658.0 to 2.2 km northwest of
KP 730.0
2.2 km northwest of KP 730.0
Project Footprint
Project Footprint
35.1 km northwest of KP 684.0 to 48.9 km west of
KP 639.0
102.0 km north of KPK 679.6
Crosses at KPN 734.1
Crosses at KP 624.5
786 m east of KP 625.5
Parallels the proposed Project from KP 659.0 to
KP 673.0
Plant Harvesting Areas
14.7 km south of KP 645.0 to 1.9 km west of KP 626.0 to
28.7 km south of KP 570.0 to 65.7 km southeast of
KP 631.0
19.1 km south of KPK 651.6
27.5 km south of KP 653.6
49.1 km southwest of KP 680.4
Activity/Site Description
Genim Sgeenix (Grease Trail) (Gitlaxksip to
Cranberry River to Kitwancool Lake to Skeena
River)
Aiyansh (old village site)
Wii LaxKap (New Aiyansh)
Gitwinksihlkw
Laxgalts'ap
Gingolx
Gitlaxksip (old fishing/village site)
NWA
190 km north of KP 647.0 to 57.7 km southwest of
KP 672.85
102.0 km north of KPK 679.6
Crosses at KP 624.5
786 m east of KP 625.5
Grease Harbour/Gitlax'aws
Nass River
Fishery Bay
Portland Canal
Observatory Inlet
Red Bluff to Alice Arm
KPK 638.7 to KP 638.8
--
Bell-Irving River
Bowser River
Burton Creek
Cranberry River
Kinskuch River
Kiteen River
Kwinageese River
Meziadin River
Welda Creek
Tchitin River
Bear River
Iliiance River
Kitsault River
Kwinamuck Lake
----
Page 12-9
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-1 Cont'd
Nasoga Gulf Route
Approximate Distance and Direction from the Proposed Project
Kitsault Route
Gathering Place
3.25k m north of KPN 717.0
Areas Indentified as Being of Sacred Value
211 km north of KP 658.0 to 2.2 km northwest of
KP 730.0
213 km north of KP 658.0
13.9 km southeast of KP 664.0
Project Footprint; crosses from KP 667.0 to
KP 668.0
Unknown
168 km northwest of KP 686.0
Activity/Site Description
Red Bluff Eulachon Fishery
190 km north of KP 647.0 to 57.7 km southwest of
KP 672.85
192 km north of KP 654.6
50.5 km southeast of KP 633.6
26.9 km south of KP 655.6 to 26.2 km southeast of
KP 651.6
Unknown
130 km northwest of KP 672.85
Nass River
Nass Lake
Tseax Cone/Volcano
Lava Beds
Vetter Peak
Mount Hinkley
Treaty Creek
Kelskiist Creek
Sources: AMEC 2011b; NLG et al. 2000; NLG 2013
12.1.3
Nisga’a Nation Agreements for the Proposed Project
12.1.3.1
Approach to Assessing the Social, Economic, Health and Cultural Effects
WCGT and Nisga’a Nation developed an agreement entitled the Approach to Assessing the Social,
Economic, Health and Cultural Effects on Nisga’a Nation of the proposed Spectra Energy Natural Gas
Transmission System – Northeast British Columbia to the Prince Rupert Area (WCGT 2013). This
agreement specified how the EA work program for the proposed Project will meet the requirements set
out in Chapter 10, Section 8 of the NFA and the AIRs for this proposed Project. The document outlines
the approach for assessing the economic, social and cultural impacts of the proposed Project as well as
the approach to impacts on health as part of the broader EA. WCGT considered NLG Economic Social
and Cultural Impact Assessment Guidelines when assessing existing conditions as well as potential short
and long-term economic, social and cultural impacts of the proposed Project on Nisga’a Nation citizens.
Assessments are conducted to characterize potential effects as well as to develop mitigation measures
and monitoring plans to manage these potential effects.
12.1.3.2
Work Plans
Work plans are required for the issuance of Nisga’a permitting on Nisga’a Lands. Work plans were
developed for aquatics, wetlands and wildlife field studies in order to support the EA and associated
technical data reports (TDRs) for each subject area. The purpose of the field studies includes collecting
baseline information on aquatic, wetlands and wildlife ecosystems that have potential to be affected
during construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Project.
12.1.4
Consultation Activities Undertaken
This section of the Application summarizes the consultation activities undertaken by WCGT. The
information in this section is drawn from the Aboriginal consultation reports for the proposed Project.
WCGT initiated discussions with Nisga’a Nation in February 2012 regarding potential infrastructure
development and provided information about the proposed Project as its plans developed in
September 2012. Nisga’a Nation were advised of the proposed Project on September 2012. The
proposed Project Description was filed with the EAO in October 2012.
12.1.4.1
Past and Planned Consultation Activities
WCGT provided the proposed Project notification letter to Nisga’a Nation on September 10, 2012. WCGT
has continually shared Project information with Nisga'a Nation since that date and will continue to do so
as the proposed Project evolves.
Page 12-10
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
WCGT first met with Nisga’a Nation on February 16, 2012 to share Project-related information, determine
the community’s interest and develop a process for their involvement in proposed Project activities.
Through a series of subsequent meetings in-person, over the phone and via email, Nisga’a Nation
elected to participate in biophysical field studies and socio-economic studies for the proposed Project. To
date, a socio-economic study has been completed with Nisga’a Nation.
In 2012, WCGT and NLG signed an agreement that provides for funding of NLG participation in the
Application development and regulatory processes. Throughout the consultation process, Nisga’a Nation
and WCGT have held discussions on various Project-related subjects. These discussions have included:
stream crossings; geophysical surveys; contracting and employment opportunities; economic benefits;
and routing of the proposed Project through Nisga’a Lands, Village Lands and the NWA. WCGT has
attended Nisga’a community meetings to review the proposed Project with community members.
Planned consultation activities by WCGT with Nisga’a Nation include: the distribution and review of a draft
ancillary site map outlining the proposed Project features, such as access roads, compressor stations and
campsites, and providing an overview of biophysical field data results compiled for the proposed Project;
submission of Aboriginal consultation reports for review and comment; discussion of mitigation options; a
presentation on the process and content of the Application; discussion of training, employment and
business opportunities; and discussion of economic benefits.
The summary of WCGT past and planned consultation activities with Nisga’a Nation has been updated to
include activities up to December 31, 2013 and is provided in Table 12-2.
TABLE 12-2
SUMMARY OF PAST AND PLANNED CONSULTATION
ACTIVITIES WITH NISGA’A NATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Activity
Completed
In Progress
Planned
Pre-project Engagement
Project Introduction
Capacity Funding Agreement
(CFA)
Project Presentation to NLG
Community Meetings1
February 16, 2012
September 10, 2012
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
February 19, 2013
Meetings were held as open forums and formal presentations
open to all Nisga’a Village members.
n/a
Yes
Route Review Meeting
March 22nd 2013
Sept 24th 2013
December 17th 2013
October 2/3, 2013
Marine Review
in 2014
n/a
WCGT plans to host the final community
meetings with Gitwinksihlkw in
Spring 2014.
Spectra plans to conduct ongoing route
meetings
Facilities and Operations Tour
Other Formal meetings2
Community Presentations 3
Community Support
EA Review Meeting
Notes:
n/a
WCGT invited Nisga’a President and
staff to tour facilities again in spring 2014
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
WCGT plans to have EA review meeting
after the EA is submitted
n/a
Presentation to WSN in Gitlaxt’aamiks (New Ayainsh)July 30
2013
Community Open House held on Feb 21st May 15th in Prince
Rupert BC and Sept 24th 2013 in Port Edward B.C. and on
Feb 21st May 16th 2013 in Terrace BC.
Yes
• Hobiyee 2013
• Helping Hands in Action Volunteer
• Junior All Native Basketball
No
1 Meetings were held as open forums and formal presentations open to all Nisga’a Village members.
12.1.4.2
Nisga’a Villages
An outline of consultation activities with the Nisga’a village councils associated with Nisga’a Nation are
provided in Table 12-3.
Page 12-11
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-3
SUMMARY OF PAST AND PLANNED CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES
WITH NISGA’A VILLAGE COUNCILS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Community
Nisga'a Village of
Gitlaxt'aamiks
Nisga'a Village of
Laxgats'ap
Nisga'a Village of
Gitwinksihlkw
Nisga'a Village of Gingolx
12.1.4.3
First
Communication
September 10,
2012
September 10,
2012
September 10,
2012
September 10,
2012
Project Information
Package
Presentation to
Village Council
Open House
November 15, 2012
September 25, 2013
October 29, 2013
November 15, 2012
Planned in 2014
October 29, 2013
November 15, 2012
Planned in 2014
November 15, 2012
Planned in 2014
Combined with Oct 29th in
Gitlaxt’aamiks
December 16, 2013
Main Concerns
Community watershed and
routing
--Employment and business
opportunities
Changes to the Aboriginal Consultation Plan
WCGT shared the Aboriginal Consultation Plan with Nisga’a Nation for review and comment prior to final
plan submission to BC EAO. Through consultation activities to date, Nisga’a Nation has proposed minor
changes to the Aboriginal Consultation Plan for the proposed Project (Table 12-4).
TABLE 12-4
NISGA’A NATION REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION PLAN
Concern
There is no “the” before Nisga’a Lisims
Government or NLG.
Section C.2(a) should refer to the Nisga’a
Village of Gitlaxt’aamiks (formerly “New
Aiyansh”).
Correct spelling for the other three Nisga’a
communities can be found in Nisga’a Final
Agreement.
12.1.4.4
WCGT Response/Proposed Mitigation Measures
Where Issue Addressed in Consultation
Plan
WCGT will remove the word “the” in reference to Nisga’a
Lisims Government or NLG.
WCGT will replace “New Aiyansh” with “Village of
Gitlaxt’aamiks”.
Section B(g)
WCGT has been provided with the spelling of all Nisga’a
villages and made the required revisions.
Throughout the consultation plan.
Section C.1(n)
Issues, Concerns and Resolutions
Key issues and concerns raised by Nisga’a Nation up to December 31, 2013 are summarized in
Table 12-5. This information was collected primarily through proposed Project consultation activities with
Nisga’a Nation and through their participation on biophysical field studies for the proposed Project. WCGT
responses to these key issues and concerns raised as well as cross-references to where these issues are
considered in the Application are also provided in Table 12-5.
Page 12-12
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5
NISGA’A NATION KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS AND RESPONSES
Nisga'a Nation Key Issue/Concern
Economic Development/Project Benefits
Long-term benefits over the life of
WCGT has commenced discussion of the opportunity for long-term
the proposed Project
economic benefits of the proposed Project with Nisga’a Nation, including the
opportunity for jobs, contracts and the willingness to consider long term
benefit agreements.
Training and education opportunities WCGT will develop a training and education plan that looks to create
opportunities associated with the proposed Project for Nisga’a Nation and its
Contracting and employment
members.
WCGT (and its consultants) have instituted processes and procedures for
Field studies opportunities
work and/or employment opportunities for Nisga’a Nation (and its members)
during field studies. Individual work plans were developed, reviewed and
approved by Nisga’a Nation before work began.
WCGT will assess the potential needs and consider and suggest some
The provision of natural gas to
solutions for the provision of natural gas services to those communities
communities along the proposed
along the proposed route which currently do not have access to natural gas.
route that do not currently have
natural gas available for business,
industrial and residential use
Technical
Effects of seismic activity on pipeline WCGT includes an assessment of known seismic areas (active and
dormant) in the Application to understand the potential effects and identify
the appropriate mitigation and management measures. To date, no known
active fault lines are crossed by this proposed Project.
Pipeline Safety during planning,
construction and operation
Metal leaching/acid rock drainage
Inadvertent release of drilling mud
Risk to disturb mine tailings
(contaminated sediments ) in Alice
Arm near Kitsault
Cumulative Effects
Proposed Project timelines
Upstream or downstream effects of
natural gas exploration and
development
Where Issue Addressed in
Application
WCGT Response/Proposed Mitigation Measures1
WCGT will design, construct and operate the pipeline to meet or exceed
applicable codes and standards, as well as regulatory requirements and
industry standards. WCGT will have a comprehensive management process
during operation to maintain pipeline integrity and safety. Spectra Energy
provides 24/7 monitoring via control rooms for all its operating pipelines.
WCGT will follow the BC Oil and Gas Activities Act and Regulations that
specify legal obligations for the safe operation of pipelines as well
asapplicable CSA standards.
WCGT will implement mitigation measures as outlined in the Project-specific
EMP and ERP to prevent and respond to spills, fires and power outages.
WCGT will implement the Metal Leaching – Acid Rock Drainage
Management Plan where acid rock drainage conditions may exist..
WCGT will implement a number of industry accepted best practices as
outlined in the Project-specific EMP to prevent and respond to a drilling mud
release during an underground trenchless watercourse crossing.
WCGT assessed and analyzed the mine tailing sediments in terms of
location, content, concentration, etc. WCGT has identified measures to
avoid, reduce or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the disturbance of
mine tailings on the proposed Project and surrounding environment.
WCGT’s customers are looking to meet target timeframes for getting LNG
exports from BC to the Asia Pacific market near the end of the decade.
WCGT will continue to work with Nisga’a Nation to ensure communication
and engagement efforts are effective and appropriate, and provide capacity
funding to assist with the resources required to participate in the regulatory
process and WCGT’s engagement activities.
Spectra Energy builds gas processing facilities and pipelines that look to
aggregate supply into common facilities to reduce impacts. Although not part
of this environmental assessment process, WCGT will engage interested
communities in looking for innovative ways to reduce impacts.
Page 12-13
Proposed Project Overview
(Section 1.0)
(Section 1.0)
Assessment Methodology (Section 3.0)
n/a
Potential Environmental
Effects Assessment –Terrain Integrity
(Section 4.2.1)
Effects of the Environment on the
Project (Section 10.0)
Construction and Operational
Environmental Management Plans and
Follow-up Programs (Section 14.0)
Terrestrial and Marine EMPs
(Appendices 2-S and 2-T)
Emergency Response Plan
(Section 14.1.5)
Effects Assessment – Metal Leaching
and Acid Rock Drainage (Section 4.2.3)
Terrestrial EMP (Appendix 2-S)
Potential Environmental Effects
Assessment – Marine – Potentially
Contaminated Sediments in Alice Arm.
(Section 4.4.6)
(Section 1.0)
Not required by the AIRs
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
The route opens up their territory for
access they cannot control or
monitor – pipelines to be limited to
common corridors
Potential impact of water use during
exploration and development of
natural gas resources
Cumulative impacts of the proposed
Project over time
Atmospheric Environment
Potential adverse effects on air
quality
Health and Safety
Human health
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Potential adverse effects on wildlife
WCGT will implement measures to manage access along the pipeline rightof-way during construction and operations. The Access Management Plan
provides mitigation measures to control access to previously inaccessible
portions of the ROW following the construction phases and throughout the
operation phase of the proposed Project.
WCGT acknowledges the concerns that Nisga’a Nation may have with the
use of water during the exploration and development of natural gas,
however, exploration and development of natural gas is not within the scope
of the proposed Project. When and where requested, WCGT will provide or
direct Aboriginal Communities on how to obtain more information on this
subject.
WCGT has completed cumulative effect assessments as part of the
Application to characterize how the proposed Project could act in
combination with existing activities and reasonably foreseeable
developments.
The proposed Projects contribution to cumulative effects are mitigated with
implementation of the following design and construction measures:
• align the proposed pipeline route to follow existing linear features such
as pipelines and disturbed areas such as facilities/clearings to the
extent practical;
• minimize new disturbance and fragmentation by using existing access
and disturbed sites for temporary workspace, to the extent practical;
• avoid construction during sensitive timing windows for wildlife and fish,
to the extent practical;
• implement minimum disturbance construction techniques to encourage
rapid regeneration of natural vegetation;
• implement the Access Control Management Plan; and
• implement the Restoration Plan to reclaim disturbed areas.
Mitigation measures are provided in the Terrestrial and Marine EMP as well
as species and issue-specific management plans. Post-construction
monitoring will ensure the success of the mitigation measures.
Application
Access Management Plan, Terrestrial
EMP (Appendix 2-S)
Potential Cumulative Effects
Assessment (Section 4.0-8.0).
WCGT assessed the potential effects of the proposed Project on air quality
during all stages of the proposed Project in the Application.
Assessment Air Quality (Section 4.1.1)
Air Quality Management Plan
(Appendix 2-S)
WCGT will implement the following mitigation measures to address human
health concerns:
• prohibit the use of herbicides in areas of known edible plant harvesting;
• erect signage if edible vegetation has been affected;
• adhere to local and regional government bylaws and regulations;
• adhere to Environmental Health and Safety policies;
• restrict construction activities to daytime hours, to the extent practical;
• employ noise control methods such as muffler systems and buffers;
• communicate the proposed Project construction schedule with local
representatives, residents and communities;
• minimize emissions associated with vehicle idling, improperly
maintained vehicles, and non-optimized construction equipment; and
• use multi-passenger vehicles to transport crews to site to minimize
vehicle emissions; apply dust suppressants, road watering and dust
skirts on stockpiled soil; minimize emissions associated with nonmerchantable timber burning; and adhere to the Open Burning Smoke
Control Regulations.
Potential Health Effects Assessment –
Human Health (Section 8.1.1)
Air Quality Management Plan
(Appendix 2-S)
WCGT assessed the potential for adverse effects of the proposed Project on
identified wildlife species and their habitat in the Application.
Assessment – Wildlife and Wildlife
Habitat (Section 4.8)
Page 12-14
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Disturbance of bird habitat during
construction
Potential effects to ungulates and
ungulate habitat
Potential loss of beaver dam/lodge
Potential for construction activities to
limit disturbance to game trails
and/or restriction to wildlife
movement
Right-of-way concerns (e.g., travel
of wolves and wildlife on right-ofway; increased access for
recreational harvesters to the area,
Right-of-way width)
Right-of-way concerns (e.g., travel
of wolves and wildlife on right-ofway; increased access for
recreational harvesters to the area,
Right-of-way width) (cont’d)
key indicator bird species and communities and their habitat in the
Application.
WCGT will schedule clearing activities outside the migratory bird breeding
and nesting season of May 1 to July 31. In the event clearing or construction
activities are scheduled during the migratory bird breeding and nesting
season, migratory bird nest sweeps will be conducted. In the event an active
nest is found, it will be subject to site-specific mitigation measures
(i.e., clearly mark a protective buffer around the nest and/or non-intrusive
monitoring).
WCGT will implement measures that will reduce the potential effect to
ungulates and habitat. These include:
• restoring native vegetation (plant native tree seedlings and/or shrubs at
select locations), use existing roads to access the pipeline right-of-way
where practical; and
• deactivate and reclaim any temporary roads that are no longer needed
with native vegetation.
Details on mitigation measures to reduce potential effect to ungulates and
ungulate habitat is provided in the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat EA section
and the terrestrial EMP.
In the event that beaver dams or lodges will be disturbed, WCGT will obtain
a Wildlife Sundry Permit for beaver dam removal (obtained from BC Ministry
of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) and engage
registered trappers prior to commencing activities.
WCGT will implement the following mitigation measure to reduce potential
for construction activities to limit the use of game trails and restricting wildlife
movement:
• conduct work expeditiously to maintain a tight construction spread
(i.e., interval between front-end work activities such as grading and
back-end activities such as clean-up) to reduce the duration of the open
trench and to reduce potential barriers and hazards to wildlife; and
• locate gaps in pipe to facilitate wildlife movement in places that also
facilitate construction such as at slope changes, crossings
(i.e., watercourse, road, pipeline right-of-way and railway) and bends.
The locations of the gaps should coincide with gaps in spoil, slash piles
and snow windrows. The locations will be determined in the field by the
Environmental Field Inspector.
WCGT will work with Nisga’a Nation and the provincial government on
strategies to reduce the use of rights of way by recreational users, including
the use of temporary access structures that can be removed upon
completion of use, the use of re-contouring side slopes when and where
appropriate and other measures determined through discussions with
Aboriginal Communities and government.
WCGT will implement measures to manage access (human and predator)
along the pipeline right-of-way following construction (e.g., during final cleanup). Measures may include using woody debris as rollback, mounding,
placing boulders across the right-of-way, installing gates and signs and
planting trees and/or shrubs at select locations along the pipeline right-ofway.
No hunting will be allowed by Project construction personnel on or near the
proposed Project site during working hours, or while they are staying in
Project accommodations.
The use of the construction right-of-way or Project access roads by Project
personnel for hunting is prohibited during the construction phases of the
Project.
Page 12-15
Application
Marine Ecosystems
(Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5)
Access Management Plan
(Appendix 2-S)
Restoration Plan (Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
Traffic Management Plan
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Potential for increased access for
recreational harvesters to the area
and/or increased pressure on wildlife
and fish resources as a result of new
roads
Effects of construction on wildlife
habitat and/or increased lines-ofsight
Potential loss of bear habitat
Loss of furbearing mammals habitat
(e.g., mustelid, rodent, and
lagomorphs)
WCGT will limit the creation of new permanent roads to sites that require
regular or routine access, such as compressor stations, valve stations and
aerial stream crossings. Where new temporary roads have been constructed
or existing temporary roads reactivated, WCGT will deactivate as identified
in the Access Management Plan. Existing roads and linear corridors will be
used for access wherever practical. Temporary construction access roads
will be deactivated and restored.
WCGT will implement the Access Management Plan including access
control measures (e.g., signage, road closures, restrictions, access control
structures, vegetation screens) to avoid or reduce unauthorized motorized
access.
habitat for bears in the Application. Measures to be implemented by WCGT
to reduce the loss of bear habitat include the following:
• Schedule clearing and construction activities within identified high value
grizzly bear habitat (e.g., Class 1 and 2 areas identified in Land Use
Plans) outside of periods of high seasonal use (e.g., key foraging
habitat in the spring and salmon bearing watercourses in the summer
and fall), where practical.
• WCGT will prepare a Bear/Human Conflict Management Plan and a
detailed Access Management Plan.
• Retention of coarse woody debris during clearing for distribution over
the pipeline right-of-way during reclamation.
• WCGT will design access routes to dead-end (i.e., access that loops
through the area or connects separate road systems will be avoided).
• As soon as practical upon completion of construction, WCGT will
deactivate and reclaim all temporary roads that are not necessary for
operational access. WCGT will implement measures to prevent public
access along deactivated roads, where warranted.
• WCGT will limit vegetation control along the right-of-way and allow
natural regeneration during the operation phase to the extent practical.
habitat for forest furbearers (e.g., mustelids). Wildlife key indicators
assessed included various wildlife species/groups, communities and habitat
types in the Application, which provides an indication of likely effects on
wildlife which are not specifically identified as key indicators. A suite of
mitigation measures have been designed to reduce the Project effects on
wildlife habitat, including but not limited to reducing the construction footprint
to the extent practical, minimizing the level of disturbance (e.g., low-impact
construction methods where soil handling/grading is not necessary),
restoration measures that facilitate regeneration of natural vegetation and
restore habitat connectivity and facilitate wildlife movement (e.g., distribution
of coarse woody debris over the footprint). Further details are provided in the
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat EA section and the Terrestrial EMP.
Page 12-16
Application
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Potential loss of carnivore habitat
Potential loss of amphibian habitat
Wetlands
Potential adverse effects on
wetlands
habitat for carnivorous mammal key indicators (grizzly bear, forest
furbearers) and carnivorous bird key indicators, as well as through an
evaluation of predator/prey interactions for relevant ungulate key indicators
(e.g., moose, caribou). A suite of mitigation measures have been designed
to reduce the Project effects on wildlife habitat, including but not limited to
reducing the construction footprint to the extent practical, minimizing the
level of disturbance (e.g., low-impact construction methods where soil
handling/grading is not necessary), restoration measures that facilitate
regeneration of natural vegetation and restore habitat connectivity and
facilitate wildlife movement (e.g., distribution of coarse woody debris over the
footprint). Further details are provided in the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat EA
section and the Terrestrial EMP.
habitat for amphibian key indicators in the Application. A suite of mitigation
measures have been designed to reduce the Project effects on amphibian
habitat, including but not limited to the following.
• Reducing the construction footprint to the extent practical, minimizing
the level of disturbance (e.g., low-impact construction methods where
soil handling/grading is not necessary), restoration measures that
facilitate regeneration of natural vegetation and restore habitat
connectivity and facilitate wildlife movement (e.g., distribution of coarse
woody debris over the footprint). Further details are provided in the
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat EA section and the Terrestrial EMP.
• Avoiding wetlands, where possible. In the event that wetlands with
potential to support amphibians will be crossed, pre-construction
surveys will be conducted and the appropriate mitigation applied
(i.e., protective buffers and timing windows) as needed in consultation
with the Nisga’a and provincial regulatory authorities.
• Implementing best practices during construction and reclamation at
wetland and watercourse crossings to reduce potential impacts to pond
and stream dwelling amphibians (see responses below for details on
wetland and watercourse protection measures).
WCGT identified and assessed all substantive wetland sites, and where
possible, avoid their disturbance, and where disturbance is unavoidable,
develop measures to reduce or mitigate the potential adverse effects that the
proposed Project may have on these sites. Mitigation measure to minimize
the potential adverse effects on wetlands include the following:
• use natural recovery as the preferred method of reclamation, unless
otherwise specified by WCGT;
• when wetlands are being crossed, limit the use of extra temporary
workspace, limit grubbing to the ditch line, build a log corduroy or
implement other measures alongside the wetlands to reduce adverse
effects from heavy machinery traffic, keep soil salvage of peat and
mineral soils separate in shallow peat wetlands and replace mineral
soils prior to replacing peat and/or wetland substrate;
• reduce the use of areas within the riparian management areas of
wetlands, to the extent practical;
• reduce the removal of vegetation in wetlands to the extent practical;
and
• lay geotextile material, matting or log corduroy over sensitive soil and
wetland areas to reduce soil and surface vegetation effects, or
construct only during frozen conditions in these areas to reduce rutting.
Page 12-17
Application
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
Assessment – Wetland Function
(Section 4.5.3)
(Appendix 2-S)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Vegetation
Potential effects on mature growth
forests
Herbicide spraying on right-of-way;
contamination of water, plants and
animals by pesticides; requested no
use of pesticides
Potential effects on existing
vegetation
Limit extent of tree clearing for the
Project.
WCGT will avoid areas of old forest by: realigning the route, relocating
workspace, adjusting the equipment layout or location of the footprint,
extending road or watercourse bores or narrowing the right-of-way or
workspace. If that cannot be accomplished, construction methods will be
altered to provide the greatest protection to the area.
WCGT will not clear timber, stumps, brush or other vegetation beyond the
marked construction rights-of-way boundaries.
In old growth areas (including OGMAs) that cannot be avoided, reduce
effects on old growth attributes by retain standing dead trees and large
stumps.
Where avoidance of Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) is not
possible, WCGT will consult with MFLNRO and licencees in the area to find
suitable replacement areas.
The final pipeline route will avoid Vegetation Communities of Special Interest
(Old Growth Forest Areas [including OGMAs]), Western redcedar and
yellow-cedar dominated communities, Pine Mushroom Areas, as well as
Alpine/Subalpine and Grassland Ecosystems) to the extent practical.
WCGT will employ an integrated vegetation management program using a
variety of right of way management strategies that look to avoid, reduce or
eliminate the use of herbicides in areas of concern.
All equipment must arrive at the Project site clean and free of soil or
vegetative debris. Equipment will be inspected by the Environmental
Inspector(s) or designate and if deemed to be in appropriate condition, will
be identified with a suitable marker or tag. Any equipment which arrives in a
dirty condition shall not be allowed on the right-of-way until it has been
cleaned.
WCGT will implement the following mitigations measures to minimize the
potential effects on existing vegetation:
• where grading is not required, identify shrub (including young forest)
areas prior to construction;
• walk down tall shrubs and tree saplings and pack sufficient snow/ice
over walked-down vegetation on the travel and work surfaces during
winter construction to allow tall vegetation to recover quickly following
construction;
• cut/mow/walk down shrubs and small diameter deciduous trees at
ground level to facilitate rapid regeneration:
• use natural recovery as the preferred method of reclamation on level
terrain and at wetlands;
• restore native vegetation in accordance with the guidance outlined in
the BC Oil and Gas Activities Act and Pipeline and Liquefied Natural
Gas Facility Regulation;
• reduce the width of grubbing near watercourses, wetlands and through
other wet areas to facilitate the restoration of shrub communities; and
• reduce disturbance at riparian areas and where practical.
WCGT will implement the following mitigation measures to limit the extent of
tree clearing for the proposed Project:
• do not clear timber, stumps, brush or other vegetation beyond the
marked construction rights-of-way boundaries;
• restrict grubbing within 2 m of the edge of the construction right-of-way
and associated facilities, where practical, sites to prevent damaging
adjacent trees and to limit the potential for infection and spread of forest
health pathogens; and
• in identified old growth and pine mushroom areas, narrow the work area
to retain patches of natural species including trees (young, mature
and/or old), shrubs, herbs and ground cover species, depending on the
type and distribution found in the vegetation community, where
practical.
Page 12-18
Application
Assessment – Terrestrial Vegetation
(Section 4.5.2)
Invasive Plant Species Management
Plan (Appendix 2-S)
Assessment –Terrestrial Vegetation
(Section 4.5.2)
Assessment – Terrestrial Vegetation
(Section 4.5.2)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Aquatic Environment
fisheries
fisheries in the Application. Where identified and appropriate, WCGT will
look to conduct work in areas of critical importance to identify fisheries during
time periods when, or in areas where, fishing activities are not conducted,
avoiding sensitive fishing sites when and where possible, and engaging with
fishers as to the location of these sites and timing of fisheries.
watercourses
WCGT assessed the potential for adverse effects in connection with all
watercourse crossings in the assessment of the aquatic environment and
develop stream crossing measures that eliminate, avoid, reduce or mitigate
any harmful effects.
Need for reclamation and protection
measures for watercourses
WCGT will implement the following mitigation measures to minimize the
need for reclamation and protection measures for watercourses:
• install erosion and sediment control at all watercourses and/or
waterbodies;
• limit clearing of extra temporary workspace within the riparian
management area of a watercourse to protect riparian areas, where
practical;
• clearly mark these areas prior to clearing;
• narrow the right-of-way through the riparian management area, where
practical;
• if the working surface is unstable, do not permit clearing equipment
within the riparian management area;
• when riparian areas are being crossed do not include extra temporary
workspace, limit grubbing to the ditch line and lay geotextile material or
build a log corduroy alongside the riparian area for heavy machinery,
where applicable;
• seed disturbed banks and riparian areas with an approved native seed
mixture;
• where practical, WCGT will conduct work in areas of critical importance
to identified species by avoiding sensitive habitat and life, locating rights
of way away from riparian areas, managing water quality and quantity
and avoiding or reducing erosion and potential sediment entry into
streams;
• return the watercourse bed and banks to their pre-disturbance
configuration with no realignment of the channel;
• replace any site-specific features that are important for fish or other
aquatic species (i.e., boulder clusters, log jams or over-hanging
vegetation);
• implement bank reclamation measures to re-establish riparian
vegetation and fish habitat as a part of backfill operations; and
• develop water quality monitoring plans, as needed, to monitor for
sediment events during instream construction activities as required by
the applicable regulatory approvals.
Page 12-19
Application
Effects Assessment – Fish and Fish
Habitat (Section 4.5.1)
Water Quality Management Plan
(Appendix 2-S)
Watercourse Crossing Plans
(Appendix 2-S)
Assessment – Fish and Fish Habitat
(Section 4.5.1)
Environmental Management Plan
(Section 13.2)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Section 4.5.1) Environmental
Management Plan (Section 13.2)
(Appendix 2-S)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Potential adverse effects on water
quality
Potential adverse effects on fish
(includes marine and freshwater,
and includes salmon species, trout
species, eulachon, halibut, cod, etc)
eulachon populations during
migration and spawning
Where practical, WCGT will conduct work in areas of critical importance to
identified species by avoiding sensitive habitat and life, locating rights of way
away from riparian areas, managing water quality and quantity and avoiding
or reducing erosion and potential sediment entry into streams.
WCGT will develop a monitoring plan, as needed, to monitor for sediment
events during instream construction activities as required by the applicable
regulatory approvals.
WCGT will return the watercourse bed and banks to their pre-disturbance
configuration with no realignment of the channel.
WCGT replace any site-specific features that are important for fish or other
aquatic species (i.e., boulder clusters, log jams or over-hanging vegetation).
WCGT will implement bank reclamation measures to re-establish riparian
vegetation and fish habitat as a part of backfill operations.
WCGT will assess the potential for adverse effects of the proposed Project
on fish species and their habitat in the Application. Where identified and
appropriate, WCGT will look to conduct work in areas of critical importance
to identify species during time periods when fish are absent or, avoiding
sensitive habitat and life cycles (i.e., avoidance of instream work at sensitive
locations or times), locating rights of way away from riparian areas,
managing water quality and quantity and avoiding or reducing erosion and
potential sediment entry into streams and other specified measures.
Where practical, WCGT will conduct work in areas of critical importance to
identified species by avoiding sensitive habitat and life, locating rights of way
away from riparian areas, managing water quality and quantity and avoiding
or reducing erosion and potential sediment entry into streams
If an isolated method is employed, WCGT will implement the following
mitigation measures.
• Conduct fish salvage, in accordance with permit conditions, using
appropriate methods and equipment. All captured fish will be released
to areas downstream of the crossing that provide suitable habitat.
• Return the watercourse bed and banks to their pre-disturbance
configuration with no realignment of the channel, where practical.
• Replace any site-specific features that are important for fish or other
aquatic species (i.e., boulder clusters, log jams or over-hanging
vegetation).
• Implement bank reclamation measures to re-establish riparian
vegetation and fish habitat as a part of backfill operations.
• Develop water quality monitoring plans, as needed, to monitor for
sediment events during instream construction activities as required by
the applicable regulatory approvals.
eulachon and their habitat in the Application. Where practical, WCGT will
conduct work in areas of critical importance to identified species by avoiding
sensitive habitat and life, locating rights of way away from riparian areas,
managing water quality and quantity and avoiding or reducing erosion and
potential sediment entry into streams
Potential adverse effects on marine
environments (includes multiple
ocean and river run fish species,
crab, clams, eelgrass, etc)
WCGT assessed the marine environment in the Application to understand
potential effects on a variety of marine life forms and identify the appropriate
mitigation measures.
Potential erosion and sedimentation
from construction activities
WCGT assessed the potential for erosion and sedimentation from
construction activities in the Application.
WCGT will store excavation material above the ordinary high watermark
where spoil will not erode back into the water course, where practical.
Vegetative buffers are to be maintained and, consequently, spoil may need
to be stockpiled an appropriate distance from the banks as determined by an
Environmental Inspector(s).
In areas of high erosion potential (steep and moderate slopes, etc), WCGT
will install cross ditches and berms on the construction right-of-way, access
roads, work camps and ancillary sites
WCGT will inspect temporary sediment control structures on a regular basis,
following precipitation events and snowmelt, and where repairs are
warranted.
Page 12-20
Application
Assessment – Water Quality and
Quantity (Section 4.3.2)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
Effects Assessment – Fish and Fish
Habitat (Section 4.5.1)
Marine (Section 4.4.2 and 4.4.3)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Appendix 2-S)
(Section 4.5.1)
Marine Ecosystems
(Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5)
Assessment
Marine Ecosystems
(Section 4.4.4 and 4.4.5)
(Section 4.5)
Marine Ecosystems
(Section 4.4.2 and 4.4.3)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Increased access to watercourses
and isolated areas via construction
access roads, leading to overfishing
and damage of riparian areas
Protection of bull trout, a species
sensitive to disruption
Potential effects of construction
activities on areas considered of
sacred value in the Nass River
watershed
Disruption of water flow and
drainage patterns; and potential for
flooding
WCGT will implement measures to manage access to watercourses and
isolated areas via construction access roads, leading to overfishing and
damage of riparian areas in the Application.
• Prohibit recreational fishing by Project personnel on or in the vicinity of
the construction right-of-way, access roads, permanent facility sites,
work camps and ancillary sites. The use of the construction right-of-way
or access roads by Project personnel to access fishing sites is
prohibited.
• Placing rollback or large boulders across access points to prevent
recreational vehicle access.
• Use existing access roads and trails, where practical and safe to do so,
rather than develop new access.
• Remove temporary vehicle crossing structures prior to spring break-up.
• Restrict construction activities to the designated right-of-way, access
routes and approved temporary work space acquired along the pipeline
and elsewhere.
WCGT assessed the aquatic environment to understand potential effects on
a variety of species of special concern (including bull trout) and identify the
appropriate mitigation measures.
disruption to bull trout and other sensitive species:
• implement, refer and adhere to measures outlined in the Access
Management Plan to prevent increased access;
• develop a site-specific plan for watercourses undergoing channel
realignment that ensures:
−
no serious harm to fish; and
−
no obstruction to fish migration;
• prohibit recreational fishing by Project personnel on or in the vicinity of
the construction right-of-way, access roads, permanent facility sites,
work camps and ancillary sites;
• schedule crossings to protect sensitive life stages by adhering to
windows of least risk. No construction work will occur outside of the
window of least risk unless approval from the appropriate regulatory
agencies is obtained; and
• refer and adhere to the mitigative measures outlined in the Fish
Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan.
WCGT is working with Nisga’a Nation in identifying and assessing the
potential effects of the proposed Project on areas considered to be of sacred
value in the Application (including meeting the requirements of the NFA) and
will identify measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate the potential adverse
effects of the proposed Project on cultural sites.
WCGT will implement the following mitigation measures, where practical, to
minimize the potential disruption of natural water cycles, flow and drainage
patterns:
• maintain natural drainage patterns across the construction right of way,
access roads, permanent facility sites, work camps and ancillary sites
during all phases of construction;
• ensure construction activities do not cause the unintentional ponding of
water or channelization or concentration of surface water flow;
• provide surface drainage of adequate capacity across the construction
right of way, access roads, permanent facility sites, work camps and
ancillary sites;
• where the construction right-of-way parallels existing infrastructure,
surface water control measures will be planned in conjunction with
existing drainage structures;
• cross berms or ditches should be used to maintain surface water flows
in the same location as prior to construction; and
• inspect new culvert installations and take appropriate action prior to and
during spring breakup to clear culverts blocked by ice or debris to
maintain downstream flow at all watercourses.
Page 12-21
Application
(Section 4.5)
(Section 4.5)
Potential Social Effects Assessment –
Current Use of Lands and Resources
(Section 6.1)
Assessment
Water (Section 4.3)
Effects of the Environment on the
Project (Section 10)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Effects of hydraulic fracturing on
fish, fish habitats and watersheds
Contamination of water from
machinery used during construction
Heritage Resources
Avoid all heritage resource sites
Conduct further archaeological
studies
Spectra Energy builds gas processing facilities and pipelines that look to
aggregate supply into common facilities to reduce impacts. Although not part
of this environmental assessment process, Spectra Energy will engage
interested communities in looking for innovative ways to reduce impacts.
potential contamination from construction machinery:
• implement the Spill Contingency Plan, the Waste Management Plan,
and the Emergency Response Plan;
• ensure that bulk fuel trucks, service vehicles and pick-up trucks
equipped with box mounted fuel tanks carry spill prevention,
containment and clean up materials that are suitable for the volume of
fuels or oils carried;
• do not store fuel, oil or hazardous material within 100 m of a
watercourse or waterbody, except where secondary containment is
provided;
• ensure equipment used in or adjacent to a watercourse or waterbody
will be clean or otherwise free of external grease, oil or other fluids,
excessive muds, soil and vegetation, prior to entering the waterbody;
and
• train personnel in the proper use of containment and clean up
equipment will be conducted prior to construction.
WCGT will suspend work in proximity (i.e., within 30 m) to archaeological
sites discovered during construction. No work at that particular location shall
continue until permission is granted by the appropriate authority, in
consultation with Nisga’a Nation. Follow the contingency measures identified
in the Heritage Resources Discovery Contingency Plan.
WCGT will arrange for emergency archaeological excavation of previously
unidentified sites endangered by pipeline construction wherever such sites
warrant attention and can be excavated without interfering with the
construction schedule.
WCGT will conduct AIA site investigations along areas left to assess in 2014
and implement appropriate mitigations identified in the Heritage Resources
Discovery Contingency Plan in the event of discovery of archaeological sites
during the AIA (Permit 2013-0108) for BC.
Traditional Land and Resource Use
Potential adverse effects on areas of WCGT is working with Nisga’a Nation in identifying and assessing the
cultural importance
potential effects of the proposed Project on cultural and heritage resources
(including meeting the requirements of the NFA) and will identify measures
to avoid, reduce or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the proposed
Project on cultural sites.
WCGT is working with NLG on traditional land use assessments that will
Aboriginal rights, including title and
provide descriptions of past, current and future use of land and resource
treaty rights
activities for traditional purposes by the applicable Nisga’a peoples,
including, but not limited to hunting, fishing, trapping and other traditional
land uses. WCGT, in consultation with Nisga’a Nation, will identify measures
to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential adverse effects of the proposed Project
on traditional land and resource use.
Page 12-22
Application
Assessment
Water (Section 4.3)
Marine EMP (Appendix 2-T)
Heritage Resources Discovery
Contingency Plan, Terrestrial EMP
(Appendix 2-S)
Heritage Resources Discovery
Contingency Plan, Terrestrial EMP
(Appendix 2-S)
Current Use of Lands and Resources
(Section 6.1)
Traditional Land and resource Use
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-5 Cont'd
Potential effects on harvested plants
including medicinal plants
Note: 1
WCGT will continue discussions with Nisga’a Nation to identify plant
gathering sites that warrant mitigation. WCGT will implement the following
mitigations to minimize the potential effects on harvested plants including
medicinal plants:
• all equipment must arrive at the Project site clean and free of soil or
vegetative debris. Equipment will be inspected by the Environmental
Inspector(s) or designate and if deemed to be in appropriate condition,
will be identified with a suitable marker or tag. Any equipment which
arrives in a dirty condition shall not be allowed on the right-of-way until
it has been cleaned;
• implement the EMP, Access Management Plan, Restoration Plan and
Waste Management Plan to reduce the potential effects on subsistence
plant gathering activities, wetlands and vegetation;
• use natural recovery as the preferred method of reclamation on level
terrain and at wetlands; and
• restore native vegetation in accordance with the guidance outlined in
the BC Oil and Gas Activities Act and Pipeline and Liquefied Natural
Gas Facility Regulation.
Application
Current Use of Land and Resources for
Traditional Purposes (Section 6.1)
Invasive Plant Species Management
Plan (Appendix 2-S)
Mitigation measures have been updated since communicated in the Draft Aboriginal Consultation Report #2. Further consultation will be undertaken
with Nisga’a Nation.
12.2
Environmental Effects Assessment (Pursuant to Section 8(e), Chapter 10 of
the Nisga’a Final Agreement
This section assesses whether the proposed Project can reasonably be expected to have adverse
environmental effects on residents of Nisga’a Lands, Nisga’a Lands or Nisga’a interests as set out in the
NFA. This section also includes measures to prevent or mitigate those effects.
12.2.1
Baseline Data Collection and Analysis
12.2.1.1
Desktop and Literature Review
Baseline information was collected for each environmental topic pertaining to Nisga’a interests related to
the following Application sections: fish (Section 4.5); vegetation (Section 4.6); wildlife (Section 4.8); and
the marine environment (Section 4.4) through a detailed desktop and literature review. Each assessment
section (Section 4.4 to 4.6 and 4.8) provides baseline data collection and analysis information, and
accompanying TDRs as part of the Application. The following TDRs should be referenced along with the
related EA section of the Application:
•
Marine Environmental Technical Data Report (Appendix 2-F);
•
Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat Technical Data Report (Appendix 2-K);
•
Vegetation Technical Data Report (Appendix 2-L);
•
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Data Report (Appendix 2-N); and
•
Wildlife Habitat Modeling Technical Data Report: Approach, Methods and Species
Accounts (Appendix 2-O).
Sources reviewed for baseline data and information include:
•
existing wildlife habitat literature and research from the area;
•
work completed by LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates, a consulting
group that works on Nisga’a Lands;
Page 12-23
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
•
regulatory applications and project effects assessments, including the Kitsault Mine
Project, Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) Mining Project, Northwest Transmission Project
and Greenville-Kincolith Road Project;
•
provincial databases relevant to fish, vegetation, wildlife and the marine environment;
•
provincial wildlife mapping;
•
relevant legislation, regulations and best management practices;
•
species recovery and management plans;
•
land use plans and sustainable resource management plans;
•
literature on wildlife thresholds and ZOIs; and
•
consultation with Nisga’a Nation to obtain insight into local and regional issues.
WCGT received reports from the Nisga’a Fish and Wildlife Department. Information from these reports on
fish are included in the Fish and Fish Habitat TDR.
The assessment of specific watercourses on Nisga’a Lands is limited to desktop review of information
provided by the Nisga’a Fish and Wildlife Department and LGL as well as data collected from previous
projects and the provincial database. Information collected was used to determine fish presence and
distribution and provide preliminary pipeline and crossing recommendations.
A list of potential watercourse crossings (PWC) was developed based on hydrology layers provided by
the BC Freshwater Atlas and Terrain Resource Information Mapping. Pending the issuance of a Nisga’a
License of Occupation field work will be conducted in the 2014 open water season to support the
permitting and licensing phase of the project. Fisheries related work planned for the 2014 open water
season includes: fish habitat assessments on approximately 215 PWC’s; select fish inventory work on
PWC’s with limited fisheries resource information; collection of fish-based water quality parameters
(e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature); and flow. In addition, WCGT will collect Nisga’a specified
data on approximately 20 sites. This enhanced sampling includes: collection of non-lethal genetic
samples; collection of non-lethal aging structures; fish density information and multiple season sampling
on select waterbodies.
The literature and desktop review was conducted in a manner consistent with the methods described in
Section 3.2. Desktop information was supplemented by information obtained through interviews with
residents and NLG representatives in 2013.
12.2.1.2
Boundaries
Temporal Boundaries
Temporal boundaries for Section 8(e), Chapter 10 of the NFA assessment are consistent with the
temporal boundaries for VCs for fish (Section 4.5); vegetation (Section 4.6); wildlife (Section 4.8); and the
marine environment (Section 4.4).
Administrative Boundaries
The proposed Project traverses Nisga’a Lands and the NWA, or areas adjacent to Nisga’a Lands as
2
indicated in the NFA. Nisga’a Lands, as detailed in the NFA, consist of approximately 1,992 km of land
comprising the principal area of the Nisga’a territory. To align with the AIR in satisfying Chapter 10 of the
NFA, WCGT will report on Project effects on Nisga’a interests as well as measures to prevent or mitigate
adverse environmental effects on residents of Nisga’a Lands, Nisga’a Lands, or Nisga’a interests.
Page 12-24
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Spatial Boundaries
Spatial boundaries for the Section 8(e), Chapter 10 of the NFA assessment are consistent with the spatial
boundaries for VCs for fish (Section 4.5); vegetation (Section 4.6); wildlife (Section 4.8); and the marine
environment (Section 4.4).
12.2.1.3
Environmental Overview
Anadromous Fish
Salmon and Steelhead
Within the NWA, the Nass River is the most important salmon bearing stream and supports populations of
coho, chum, Chinook, pink, sockeye salmon, steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout, all of which are
important for the Nisga’a Nation. The Nass River supports a major sockeye salmon run, with an average
annual escapement of 277,000 fish between 1994 to 2012. A total of 12 tributaries of the Nass River
support spawning stocks of sockeye salmon. Adult salmon migrate up the centre of Portland Inlet to reach
the mouth of the Nass River, and the majority of chum salmon stocks return to the Nass from June to late
August, while coho salmon return in September and October (Groot and Margolis 1991, Levy 2006). An
adult salmon holding area has been identified at the mouth of the Nasoga Gulf, likely for salmon returning
to spawn in the Nass River. Nass River fishwheel catch rates for 2013 have been below average for
chum and Chinook salmon (Nisga'a Fish and Wildlife Department 2013a), and both have been identified
as stocks of concern in the Nass River (DFO 2013a).
Chambers Creek, which drains into the head of Iceberg Bay, supports pink, chum, chinook, coho salmon
and steelhead stocks. Average annual escapement for pink salmon in Chambers Creek was 13,688 over
the past 10 years (2002 to 2012). Adult pink salmon spawn in Chambers Creek in late July and early
August (Hancock and Marshall 1984). Juvenile coho salmon have been reported in Chambers Creek in
early March (BC Ministry of Environment [MOE] 2013). Chambers Creek also supports populations of
coastal cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden. Nasoga Gulf Creek drains into the head of the Nasoga Gulf and
supports a small population of pink salmon (Hancock and Marshall 1984).
In the Nass River watershed pink salmon, chum salmon and steelhead are listed as high-priority
candidates for a detailed assessment by COSEWIC, while coastal cutthroat trout are listed as mid-priority
candidates (COSEWIC 2013).
Salmon bearing streams in Alice Arm include the Illiance and Kitsault rivers and Wilauks Creek (DFO
2012a). Chum salmon, followed by pink salmon, are the dominant species in the Kitsault River, along with
a small population of Chinook salmon (DFO 2012b). Both systems also support Dolly Varden (Freshwater
Fisheries Society of BC 2007). Spawning runs in the Illiance and Kitsault rivers and Wilauks Creek start in
July for chum salmon and extend until December for coho salmon (Hancock and Marshall 1984).
Sockeye salmon spawning has not been reported in Alice Arm streams.
Eulachon
Eulachon are an important component of the Nass River ecosystem within the NWA, supporting many
other species including marine mammals, fish and birds. Humpback whales are reported to aggregate in
spring to feed on eulachon holding off the Nass and Skeena rivers prior to spawning. Sea lion and sea
gull activity levels have been used by First Nations fishermen as an indicator of the eulachon run size
(Murray and Therriault 2010). In the Nass and Skeena Rivers, spawners return in late February and early
March (Hay and McCarter 2006), and spawning adults have been documented in the Nass River as early
as January (BC MOE 2013a). Pre-spawning adults are likely present in the Portland Inlet in late fall and
winter. The holding area in the Portland Inlet is also important for eulachon larvae feeding in coastal
waters during spring and summer, prior to travelling offshore to open ocean (Hay and McCarter 2000)..
Eulachon are a culturally important fish species to the Nisga’a Nation and the Nass River does support a
First Nations fishery (DFO 2013b). Long term records estimate that the Nass/Skeena eulachon runs are
10% of what they were in the early 1800’s at 2,000 tonnes but currently remain stable or increasing
slightly (Schweigert et al. 2012). Efforts are being made to protect the Nass River eulachon population
which is considered to be the last “healthy” run in BC (Schweigert et al. 2012).
Page 12-25
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Vegetation
Nisga’a Nation uses a wide variety of culturally important plants, berries and trees for domestic purposes.
Assessment of potential adverse effects of the proposed Project on Nisga’a interests in culturally
important plants, as outlined in the AIR, included pine mushroom, western red and yellow cedar. Detailed
baseline conditions for these species are provided in Section 4.6 and the Vegetation Technical Data
Report (Appendix 2-L).
Biogeoclimatic Zones
The Vegetation RSA for the proposed Project crosses 37 biogeoclimatic (BGC) variants, each of which
describes a different regional climate and corresponding differences in vegetation, soil and ecosystem
productivity (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). The portion of the Vegetation RSA crossing the NWA
encompasses 14 BGC variants, of which 10 are unique and 4 are similar to those encountered within the
rest of the Vegetation RSA for the Project.
BGC variants unique to the NWA include four variants in the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) Zone, one
variant in the Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) Zone, three variants in the Mountain Hemlock (MH) Zone, one
variant in the Boreal Altai Fescue Alpine (BAFA) Zone and one variant in the Coastal Mountain-heather
Alpine (CMA) Zone. BGC variants similar to those found within the rest of the Vegetation RSA are two
variants within the CWH and ICH zones, respectively.
Three of the CWH variants and three of the MH variants unique to the NWA have the potential to support
red and yellow cedar ecosystems. The four CWH and ICH variants similar to those encountered within the
rest of the Vegetation RSA for the Project can also support cedar ecosystems. Traditional lands crossed
by the Vegetation RSA contain all of the three BGC variants currently known to harbour ecosystems that
support pine mushroom habitat, however, only one within the CWH Zone is found uniquely within the
NWA. The other two pine mushroom-associated ecosystems located within the ICH Zone are also found
elsewhere within the Vegetation RSA for the proposed Project.
The CMA and BAFA zones unique to the NWA are alpine ecosystems that support slow-growing,
high-elevation plant communities that are highly susceptible to disturbance. Alpine and subalpine
ecosystems have been identified as areas of concern (BC MFLNRO 2002).
Pine Mushroom
The pine mushroom is the most economically important wild mushroom species commercially harvested
from BC forests (Berch and Wiensczyk 2001, Olivotto Timber 1999). Botanical forest products (including
11 different mushroom species and fiddleheads) are recognized as an important economic resource for
Nisga’a Nation. Other forest resources important to Nisga’a Nation include medicinal products, foods and
specific tree species required for cultural and ceremonial purposes (NLG 2002).
Pine mushrooms are found in very specific habitats that have been defined as mature (i.e., predominantly
80 to 160 years old) mixed stands of lodgepole pine, western hemlock or Douglas-fir below 800 m
elevation (Berch and Wiensczyk 2001). Potential pine mushroom habitat areas have been determined
through consultation, desktop review and Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM). Potential areas occur
within site series crossed by the proposed Project in the Vegetation RSA within the NWA.
Western Redcedar and Yellow-Cedar
Western redcedar and yellow-cedar were identified as having important cultural values and are used for
making traditional totem poles, canoes, log homes, traditional clothing, masks, bent boxes and carvings.
Cedar bark is harvested for weaving baskets, jewellery, hats and diapers, while cedar branches are used
in regalia and to make archways at gatherings. Using TEM mapping, western redcedar and
yellow-cedar-dominated site series were identified along the right-of-way in the Vegetation RSA within the
NWA.
Wildlife
Chapter 9 of the NFA stipulates that Nisga’a Nation has the right to harvest wildlife in the NWA for
domestic purposes. This stipulation includes specific allocations for grizzly bear, moose and mountain
Page 12-26
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
goat. Nisga’a Nation also has the right to harvest migratory birds anywhere in the NWA for domestic
purposes.
General information on grizzly bear, moose, mountain goat and migratory birds in the NWA is
summarized below. Additional information on all of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat KIs is provided in
Section 4.8, as well as the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Data Report (Appendix 2-N) and Wildlife
Modelling and Species Accounts Report (Appendix 2-O).
Grizzly Bear
The NWA overlaps the Cranberry, Stewart and Khutzeymateen Grizzly Bear Population Units (GBPUs)
within the Wildlife RSA. All three populations are considered to be viable with densities ranging from 30
(Cranberry GBPU) to 38 (Stewart and Khutzeymateen GBPUs) grizzly bears per 1,000 km²
(BC MFLNRO 2012a). Additional information for each GBPU is provided in the Wildlife Modelling and
Species Accounts Report (Appendix 2-O). The Cranberry and Stewart GBPUs are open to hunting
(BC MFLNRO 2012b). The Khutzeymateen GBPU is closed to hunting (BC MFLNRO 2012b).
The proposed Project traverses Class 1 and Class 2 grizzly bear habitat designated under the Central
and North Coast Order administered by the BC MFLNRO under the Land Act along the Kitsault and
Nasoga Gulf routes (BC MFLNRO 2013). Objectives set out under the Order include targets for
maintaining high value grizzly bear habitat (i.e., maintain 100% of Class 1 grizzly bear habitat and
maintain at least 50% of Class 2 grizzly bear habitat).
The proposed Project also crosses the proposed Grizzly Bear Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA 6-282) along
the Kitsault route (BC MOE 2009a). The associated General Wildlife Measures (GWM) focus on providing
functional thermal or security cover in mature and old-growth forests, and minimizing the use of pesticides
(BC MOE 2009a). Habitat targets set out in the GWMs include 100% retention of mature old-growth forest
cover within the WHA, with allowance to 90% retention if necessary to allow operational flexibility related
to timber harvest for access, operational safety considerations and to minimize impacts on adjacent
environmental values (BC MOE 2009a).
Moose
Extensive moose surveys have been completed in the NWA within the Skeena Management Region.
From 2001 to 2011, the moose population in the NWA declined from approximately 1,600 animals to
approximately 500 animals (Demarchi 2007, Demarchi and Schultze 2011) and estimated moose density
²
fell from 0.43-0.14 moose/km (Demarchi 2013). Recovery has been negligible despite a reduction in
harvest after 2007 (Demarchi 2013). The moose hunt has been essentially closed from 2012 to present
(BC MFLNRO 2013). A limited number of permits (i.e., 25) were released by Nisga’a Nation for traditional
harvest (NLG 2013). In the NWA, hunting (legal and illegal), road kill, and predation (i.e., wolves and
bears) have been highlighted as causes of moose mortality (NLG 2013).
A draft Nass Moose Recovery Plan was recently developed (NLG Fish and Wildlife Department 2013b).
The recovery plan identifies a population target of 866 to 1,212 moose (average approximately 1,000;
²
²
mean density of 0.25–0.35 moose/km in the 3,464 km area comprising the moose survey area in the
NWA) and estimates a minimum of 7 years to achieve that target if the current moose population recovers
at a rate of 10% per year. The plan identifies the following possible management actions to help achieve
the population target: harvest management and enforcement; predator management; access
management; habitat management; collaboration and outreach; implementation and funding; harvest
monitoring; and population monitoring. It is expected that predator management and a reduction in illegal
harvests will be particularly important for achieving the population target.
Dense forests are preferred by moose for cover habitat, while shrublands and early successional forests
are used as foraging habitat (Collister et al. 2003, Peek 2007). Moose populations are affected by the
availability of preferred forage species and protective cover (Dussault et al. 2006). Both natural and
human-caused disturbances (e.g., wildfire, timber harvest, road and utility corridors) can promote early
successional vegetation communities favoured by moose. The Nass Moose Recovery Plan identifies
collaboration with pipeline companies as a potential source of early seral vegetation (NLG Fish and
Wildlife Department 2013b).
Page 12-27
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Moose may undergo seasonal migrations between summer and winter ranges (Andersen 1991). In the
NWA, approximately 71% of moose studied were migratory (Demarchi 2003). Of the moose studied in the
NWA, nearly all remained within the NWA throughout their migrations (Demarchi 2000) and the maximum
migration distance recorded was approximately 74.5 km (Demarchi 2003). Latitudinal movements
occurred in valley bottoms and involved little elevational change (i.e., < 300 m) (Demarchi 2000, 2003). In
winter, the moose population was largely concentrated in the south portion of the NWA (Demarchi 2003).
In the NWA, many moose winter in the southern portions of the NWA where snow accumulation is
relatively low (Demarchi 2003).
The proposed Project traverses the proposed Nass TSA moose Ungulate Winter Ranges (UWR) u-6-018
along the Kitsault route and the proposed moose UWR u-6-009 along the Nasoga Gulf route (BC MOE
2011). Draft GWMs focus on retaining thermal and security cover for moose and minimizing roads (BC
MOE 2009b, BC MOE 2011).
Mountain Goat
Mountain goat occur in alpine and subalpine regions throughout the NWA. Surveys in the NWA,
completed in 1996 and 1997, report a minimum population of 2,286 goats with an average density of
²
0.26 goats/km in surveyed blocks (Demarchi and Johnson 1998).
The proposed route traverses mountain goat UWR u-6-010 in the NWA along the Nasoga Gulf route (BC
MOE 2013b). The associated GWMs are intended to maintain forest and vegetation cover, and reduce
displacement and sensory disturbance to mountain goat (BC MOE 2012a).
Migratory Birds
Migratory birds occur throughout the NWA. The following Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat KIs include
migratory birds that occur in the NWA: mature/old forest birds; early seral forest birds;
grassland/shrubland birds; riparian and water birds; common nighthawk; olive-sided flycatcher; and
marbled murrelet. and offshore marine bird KIs, which include coastline, inshore marine and offshore
marine bird communities, also occur in the coastal areas of the NWA. The coastline bird community
includes shorebirds (e.g., black oystercatcher), petrels, ducks and geese (e.g., Harlequin duck, surf
scoter, Barrow’s and common goldeneyes, long-tailed duck), loons, gulls and piscivorous raptors
(e.g., bald eagle). Coastline marine birds use intertidal areas (e.g., salt marshes, mudflats, and eelgrass
beds), islands and islets, and shorelines. The inshore marine bird community includes migrant waterfowl,
migrant and breeding gulls, alcids (e.g., marbled murrelets) and petrels, and cormorants (e.g., pelagic
cormorant). Inshore marine birds use inshore (nearshore) waters to forage and stage. The offshore
marine bird KI is defined as the community of birds comprised of migratory and resident pelagic seabirds
that use ocean waters, including shearwaters, albatrosses, petrels, phalaropes in migration, some alcids
(e.g., marbled and ancient murrelets, Cassin’s auklet), loons, western grebe, gulls and terns
(Section 4.4).
The proposed Project does not traverse any migratory bird WHAs, migratory bird sanctuaries, western
hemisphere shorebird reserves, Ramsar wetlands or biosphere reserves (Bureau of the Convention on
Wetlands 2012, Environment Canada 2012, UNESCO 2012, WHSRN 2012). The head of the Nass River
and the area near Prince Rupert have been identified as important staging areas for migrating
white-winged and black scoters (Clarke and Jamieson 2006).
Marine waterfowl often winter in coastal estuaries and other coastal waters, and shorebirds are
associated with estuarine and mud flat habitats along the BC coast (Gebauer 2003). Boyd and Breault
(2002) recorded large groups of moulting scoters in the southern portion of Observatory Inlet and note
that it may be a traditional moulting site. Overall, in most areas along the proposed marine routes the
densities of marine birds are lower than identified seabird colonies and foraging areas (Rodway and
Lemon 1991, Tranquilla et al. 2007).
Marine
Chapters 8 and 10, Section 8(e) of the NFA stipulate that Nisga’a Nation has the right to harvest aquatic
plants and marine mammals in the Nass Area for domestic purposes. Nisga’a interests in aquatic plants
include kelp, marine flowering plants, benthic, detached, red and green algae, and phytoplankton.
Page 12-28
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Intertidal bivalves (i.e., Dungeness and king crab) can only be harvested for domestic purposes in
designated areas within the Nass Area.
The northern fjords portion of the marine corridor (Portland and Observatory Inlet, Alice Arm) are located
within the NWA and provide habitat aquatic plants, intertidal bivalves and marine mammals. The following
subsections provide background information on these species within the Marine Habitats and Ecosystems
RSA in the northern fjords. Detailed information is provided in Section 4.4 and in the Marine Resources
Technical Data Report (Appendix 2-F).
Salt Marshes and Estuaries
Both the British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis (BCMCA) and the BC ShoreZone dataset
identify the shoreline through the northern fjords as estuary or as having salt marsh present. Within the
Portland and Observatory inlets (including Alice Arm), the BC ShoreZone dataset has 164 km (33%) of
the salt marsh indicator as either patchy or continuous Most of these salt marsh areas are located
towards the head of Alice Arm within the NWA as well as throughout Hastings Arm. It is important to note
that the Nass River estuary is a data gap in the BC ShoreZone coverage and salt marsh areas were not
accounted for in that section.
Estuaries within the north part of the Marine Habitats and Ecosystems RSA within the NWA that rank as
high or medium high conservation value include the Illiance and Kitsault rivers at the head of Alice Arm,
the Nass River and the estuaries at the Kwinamass River and Khutzeymateen Inlet (BCMCA 2011,
Remington 1993, Ryder et al. 2007).
Canopy Kelps and Other Algae
Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) is the only canopy kelp reported within the NWA; located in
Portland/Observatory inlet fjords and is distributed in a patchy fashion along the shoreline in a few
scattered beds. Other macroalgae mapped in the northern fjords and within the NWA include rockweed
and assemblages of benthic kelps.
Eelgrass
In the Portland and Observatory inlets (including Alice Arm), no eelgrass is shown on existing synoptic
inventories (BCMCA 2009, BC ShoreZone 2013). Scattered eelgrass beds are likely present, particularly
in soft sediments at the head of fjords and inlets, however, turbid freshwater input from glacial streams
limits light penetration and eelgrass growth in many of these areas.
A small area of eelgrass was observed in a previous survey conducted in 1995 (Burger and
Thuringer 1996) of the northern Nasoga Gulf, approximately 400 m north of the proposed pipeline landfall
site. The same small eelgrass patches were noted in aerial photographs taken of the head of the Nasoga
Gulf in June 2013.
Intertidal Clams
Targeted surveys of traditional harvesting areas for intertidal clams (native littleneck and butter clams as
well as cockles) confirm that the most productive beds within the Nass area are within Observatory Inlet
(Nass and English 1997) including the south end of Hastings Arm (Larcom Island, Perry Peninsula,
Brookes Shoal). Nasoga Gulf is the site of a Nisga’a bivalve harvesting reserve. Although there is no
directed commercial fishery for cockles, they are harvested by First Nations and are a valued food
resource for the Nisga’a Nation. There are no known geoducks beds within the NWA.
Dungeness and King Crab
Dungeness crabs are fished commercially throughout the northern fjord areas of the Marine Habitats and
Ecosystems RSA, but the effort is mostly concentrated at the heads of inlets and bays such as Iceberg
Bay and the Nass Estuary within the NWA (DFO 2012c).Golden king crabs can be found in the Portland
Inlet, including Alice and Hasting Arm. Smaller populations are found in the Observatory Inlet (Sloan et
al. 1984).
Page 12-29
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Pacific Halibut, Lingcod and Rockfish
Lingcod as well as rockfish are likely present in the harder bottom, moraine areas of the northern fjords
within the NWA (Alice Rock, Brookes Shoal, the terminal moraine north of the Nass River estuary).
Recreational catch data for the north coast from 1999 reported the highest number of rockfish caught
within the Nass area at 9,800 fish (Yamanaka and Lacko 2001). McCart and Withler (1980) also indicate
the catch of yelloweye rockfish and other species by First Nations in the area near Alice Arm. Halibut
likely range throughout Portland and Observatory Inlets, particularly during summer months, however no
areas for halibut spawning have been identified within the NWA. Recreational halibut catch was highest in
June and July in Portland Inlet consistent with halibut feeding in shallower depths during the summer
months (Van Tongeren and Winther 2010).
Pacific Herring
Historic herring spawn areas within the NWA include the head of Alice Arm, Kitsault and the Nasoga Gulf.
These locations are classified by DFO as areas of “minor” importance for herring spawn (DFO 2013c),
and the last reported herring spawn event in these areas occurred in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.
Herring spawning has not been reported in Iceberg Bay or the Nass estuary; freshwater and turbidity from
the Nass River suggests that the potential for herring spawning in this area is very low.
Harbour Seals and Steller Sea Lions
Harbour seals are found throughout the NWA. There were two harbour seal haulout sites observed during
field surveys in the northern fjords: in the Observatory Inlet near Liddle Channel and near Ranger Islets at
the mouth of the Nasoga Gulf.
Steller sea lions are listed as a species of Special Concern under the SARA (Environment Canada 2012)
but have recently been delisted from the Endangered Species Act in the US due to the recovery of the
eastern Pacific population. Three Steller sea lion haulouts are identified in the Chatham Sound section of
the Marine Habitats and Ecosystems RSA. No sea lion haulouts are documented in Portland and
Observatory Inlets. Stellar sea lions are however common in the spring within the NWA when they feed
on eulachon and herring during spawning. On a harvest basis, steller sea lions are more important than
harbour seals to the Nisga’a Nation.
Harbour Porpoise
Harbour porpoise sightings have been reported by the BC Cetacean Sightings Network (BCCSN) within
the NWA in the Observatory Inlet near Alice Rock and near the entrance to the Portland Inlet off
Somerville Island. Incidental sightings during field surveys included individual or small numbers of
harbour porpoises near the Kitsault and Nasoga Gulf landfall sites.
Dall’s Porpoise
Dall’s porpoise sightings from the BCCSN were reported throughout the NWA in the Observatory Inlet up
to Alice Rock and throughout the Portland Inlet, including near the Nasoga Gulf landfall site. Incidental
sightings data from field surveys reported Dall’s porpoise in the centre of the Portland Inlet near
Somerville Island.
Pacific White-sided Dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphins were reported by the BCCSN in the Portland Inlet off of Pearse Island and
near the entrance to the Nass River. Incidental sightings from field surveys observed Pacific white-sided
dolphins in the Observatory Inlet off of Brooke Island.
Killer Whale
Only one incidental killer whale sighting was reported in the Portland Inlet near the entrance to the Nass
River during aerial surveys of the Marine Habitats and Ecosystems RSA conducted in February 2013.
Killer whale sightings are reported by the BCCSN within the northern fjords, including several
concentrations in the Portland Inlet near the entrance to the Nass River off of Somerville Island in the
Portland Inlet and in the Observatory Inlet up to Alice Rock.
Page 12-30
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales have been observed within the NWA year round with the highest number of sightings
occurring from August to October. The North Pacific population of humpback whales have recently shown
a high rate of recovery and are believed to be at or near their pre-whaling population level. Humpback
whales have been observed at the mouth of the Portland Inlet (off Somerville Island) and up to the Nass
River in October and November. Humpback whale sightings have also been recorded at several other
locations, including near the Somerville and Truro islands, off the north end of Pearse Island, near the
entrance to the Nasoga Gulf and in the Observatory Inlet (BCCSN 2013). These sightings took place
between August and November. The most northerly sighting was in the Observatory Inlet approximately
7 km south of Brooke Island.
12.2.2
Nisga’a Final Agreement, Chapter 10, Section 8(e)
Chapter 10, Section 8(e) of the NFA refers to the assessment of whether a project can reasonably be
expected to have adverse environmental effects on residents of Nisga’a Lands, Nisga’a Lands or Nisga’a
interests set out in the agreement and provides mitigating measures for identified potential effects.
Table 12-6 provides information on Nisga’a interests relating to Chapter 10, Section 8(e) and the potential
for interaction with the proposed Project.
TABLE 12-6
NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT CHAPTER 10, SECTION 8(e) CONCORDANCE TABLE
Nisga'a Interest Identified in the Nisga'a Final Agreement - Chapter 10, Section 8(e)
Land Interests (Chapter 3)
Nisga’a Nation owns and has jurisdiction over Nisga’a Lands, including mineral resources and forest resources
(Chapter 5, para. 3).
Potential
Interaction
Yes
Nisga’a Nation owns Nisga’a Fee Simple Lands - Category A Lands and Category B Lands, which are outside of
Nisga’a Lands.
Other Land-Related Interests
Nisga’a citizens have the right to traditional use of lands and resources within Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park (the
“Park”) and Gingeitl Creek Ecological Reserve (BC/ Nisga’a Joint Management of the Park) – Ch 3, para. 100.
Yes
Commercial recreation tenure issued to Nisga’a Nation pursuant to Ch 3, para. 90, Appendix E sets out these areas.
Yes
Trap lines - Ch 9 Schedule B.
Yes
Angling guide licenses - Ch 9 Schedule D.
Yes
Any guide outfitter’s certificate and licence issued to Nisga’a Nation (e.g., those issued pursuant to Ch 9 para. 81).
Yes
Water reservation from the Nass River and other streams for domestic, industrial, agricultural uses – (Ch 3, para.
122) and investigating hydro power (Ch 3, para. 140).
Yes
Certain sites outside of Nisga’a Lands were designated as provincial heritage sites (Appendix F-1), and BC to
manage in order to preserve their heritage value – Ch 3, para. 95, Ch 17, para. 37.
Yes
Nisga'a Access to Other Lands
Agents, employees and contractors of Nisga’a Nation, Nisga’a’ villages, Nisga’a Corporations and members of the
Nisga’a Police Service and Nisga’a Institutions have access to non- Nisga’a Lands to carry out their responsibilities –
Ch 6, para. 20.
Nisga’a citizens have reasonable access to Crown lands to allow for the exercise of Nisga’a rights and for the normal
use and enjoyment of Nisga’a interests set out in the NFA – Ch 6, para. 23.
Page 12-31
Yes
Application Section
Proposed Project
Overview (Section 1.0)
Section 12.3.3
Section 12.3.3
Section 6.1
Section 12.2.4
Section 6.1
Section 12.2.4
Section 6.1
Section 12.2.4
Section 6.1
Section 12.2.4
Section 6.1
Section 12.2.4
Section 4.3.1.2
Section 12.2.4
Section 7.4
Section 12.2.4
No
--
No
--
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-6 Cont'd
Nisga'a Interest Identified in the Nisga'a Final Agreement - Chapter 10, Section 8(e)
Potential
Interaction
Nisga'a citizens have the right to harvest fish (Ch 8), including specific allocations
Nass salmon (i.e., sockeye, pink, Chinook, coho, and Chum salmon originating in the Nass Area).
Yes
Nass steelhead (i.e., winter run and summer run steelhead originating in the Nass Area).
Yes
Oolichan (Eulachon) within the Nass Area.
Yes
Nisga'a Citizens Have the Right to Harvest Aquatic Plants (Chapter 8), Including Specific Allocations
Marine and freshwater plants including kelp, marine flowering plants, benthic and detached algae, red algae, green
algae and phytoplankton
Yes
Application Section
Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5
Section 12.2
Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5
Section 12.2
Sections 4.4.4, 4.4.5
and 4.5.1
Section 12.2
Section 4.4.4
Section 12.2
Pine mushroom
Yes
Section 4.6
Section 12.2
Red cedar
Yes
Section 4.6
Section 12.2
Yellow cedar
Yes
Section 4.6
Section 12.2
Intertidal Bivalves for Domestic Purposes (in Designated Areas Within the Nass Area) Including: Cockle,
Yes
Section 4.4.4
Mussels, Littleneck, Butter and Manila Clams
Section 12.2
Dungeness, Tanner and King crabs
Yes
Section 4.4.5
Section 12.2
For Non-Salmon Species of Fish and Aquatic Plants, Including Marine Mammals, Nisga’a Citizens Have
Yes
Section 4.4.4
Treaty Rights to Harvest Those Species for Domestic Purposes Anywhere in the Nass Area
Section 12.2
Nisga’a Citizens Have the Right to Harvest Wildlife for Domestic Purposes Throughout the NWA (Chapter 9), Including Specific Allocations
Grizzly bear
Yes
Section 4.8
Section 12.2
Moose
Yes
Section 4.8
Section 12.2
Mountain goats
Yes
Section 4.8
Section 12.2
Wildlife Fish
Yes
Section 4.4.3
Section 12.2
Nisga’a Citizens Have the Right to Harvest Migratory Birds for Domestic Purposes Throughout the Nass Area
Yes
Section 4.4, 4.8
Section 12.2
12.2.2.1
Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Potential Residual Effects
The potential environmental effects associated with the proposed Project on Nisga’a interests are
assessed for Project-related VCs and KIs in the following sections of the Application; Marine Environment
(Section 4.4); Fish and Fish Habitat (Section 4.5); Vegetation (Section 4.6); and Wildlife (Section 4.8).
The potential environmental effects were based on the results of the literature review, desktop analysis,
field work, interviews, modelling, TEK, consultation with Nisga’a Nation, Aboriginal communities,
government agencies, landowners, land management plans and other stakeholders, as well as the
experience of the assessment team.
The Marine Environment (Section 4.4), Fish and Fish Habitat (Section 4.5), Vegetation (Section 4.6) and
Wildlife (Section 4.8) sections provide an assessment of potential effects, mitigation measures and
potential residual effects on Project-related VCs and KIs for various subject areas for the entire proposed
Project. The effects assessment for each relevant environmental subject area is based on the best
available baseline information sought through a variety of sources as mentioned in Section 12.2.1. The
effects assessments are based on the baseline data and information referenced in section and
information provided to date by Nisga’a Nation, the working group members and other consultations.
There are no additional limitations applicable to this assessment (other than those discussed in section 4)
as it relates to the Nisga’a. In some respects, the level of baseline data and information is higher in
Page 12-32
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
respect to the Nass area, given information provided by the Nisga’a, additional studies undertaken and
information available from other recent assessment reports.
Potential environmental effects of the proposed Project on residents of Nisga’a Lands, Nisga’a Lands or
Nisga’a interests as well as mitigation measures and potential residual effects are summarized in
Table 12-7.
TABLE 12-7
ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES
RELEVANT TO NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT CHAPTER 10, SECTION 8(e)
Potential
Environmental
Effect
Location
Fish
Nass Salmon, Nass Steelhead, Oolichan and Wildlife Fish
Watercourse
Fish and Fish
Alteration or loss of
Crossings
Habitat
riparian habitat
function
Project Footprint
instream habitat
Increased
suspended
sediment
concentrations in
the water column
Watercourse
Crossings
Watercourse
Crossings
Key Recommendations/
Mitigation Measures
Potential Residual
Effect (after mitigation)
Application
Section
Information on key recommendations for
general mitigation measures applied to this
potential effect is provided in Section 4.5.
• Specific mitigation measures are provided in
the Project EMP, Section 14.0.
• Nisga’a Nation input has been considered
and integrated into the proposed mitigation
measures.
Same as above.
riparian habitat function
during construction.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Fish and Fish
Habitat
(Section 4.5)
Spatial
Boundary1
Fish and Fish
Habitat
Project Footprint
Fish and Fish
Habitat LSA
•
Same as above.
Fish mortality and
injury
Watercourse
Crossings
Fish and Fish
Habitat LSA
Same as above.
Increased access to
fish and fish habitat
Watercourse
Crossings
Fish and Fish
Habitat LSA
Same as above.
riparian habitat function
within the right-of-way
during operations.
Alteration of instream
habitat within the ZOI at
trenched crossings and
non bridged vehicle
crossings.
Alteration of instream
habitat within the ZOI
during operations.
Increased fish mortality
or injury due to increase
of suspended sediment
during instream
construction at trenched
crossings within the ZOI.
or injury due to increase
of suspended sediment
during operations.
or injury during
construction activities.
Disturbance to instream
habitat due to a potential
increase in access
during operation and
construction.
or injury due to a
potential increase in
access during
operations.
Page 12-33
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Habitat
(Section 4.5)
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Habitat
(Section 4.5)
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Habitat
(Section 4.5)
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Habitat
(Section 4.5)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-7 Cont'd
Potential
Environmental
Effect
Mitigation Measures
Potential Residual
Location
Spatial
Boundary1
Blockage of fish
movements
Watercourse
Crossings
Fish and Fish
Habitat LSA
Same as above.
Temporary blockage of
fish movements during
construction of isolated
watercourse crossings.
Effects on fish
species of
conservation
concern
Watercourse
Crossings
Fish and Fish
Habitat LSA
Same as above.
Disturbance from
construction noise
Nearshore/
Offshore
Nearshore and
Offshore RSA
Disturbance due to
underwater blasting
Nearshore/
Offshore
Nearshore and
Offshore LSA
measures.
Same as above.
Fish species of
conservation concern
may be affected by an
increase in suspended
sediment concentration,
habitat alteration within
the ZOI and increased
potential for mortality or
injury
Disturbance to
nearshore fish from
construction noise.
Displacement,
injury or mortality
due to
sedimentation
Nearshore/
Offshore
Nearshore and
Offshore LSA
Vegetation
Pine Mushroom, Redcedar and Yellow-cedar
Loss or alteration of Pipeline,
Vegetation
pine mushroom
Access Road,
Project Footprint
habitat
Construction
to LSA
Camps,
Temporary
Facilities,
Permanent
Facilities
Loss or alteration of
red or yellow-cedar
dominated habitat
Pipeline,
Access Road,
Construction
Camps,
Temporary
Facilities,
Permanent
Facilities
Vegetation
Project Footprint
to LSA
•
Displacement, injury or
mortality during
underwater blasting.
Application
Section
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Habitat
(Section 4.5)
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Habitat
(Section 4.5)
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
Same as above.
Displacement, injury or
mortality of nearshore
fish due to
sedimentation.
measures.
Same as above.
Alteration of pine
mushroom habitat
through direct effects on
the Footprint and
through indirect effects
adjacent to the Project
Footprint.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Vegetation
(Section 4.5)
Alteration of redcedar
and
yellow-cedar-dominated
habitat if mitigation
measures do not
completely protect a site
through direct effects on
the Footprint, and
through indirect effects
adjacent to the Project
footprint.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Vegetation
(Section 4.5)
•
Page 12-34
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-7 Cont'd
Potential
Environmental
Effect
Wildlife
Grizzly Bear
Change in habitat,
movement and
mortality risk
Location
Application
Corridor
Mitigation Measures
Spatial
Boundary1
Wildlife RSA
•
•
•
Specific mitigation measures are provided in
Nisga’a Nation input has been considered
measures.
Potential Residual
Application
Section
Combined Project
effects on grizzly bear
resulting from changes
in habitat, movement
patterns and mortality
risk.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Wildlife
(Section 4.8)
Moose
Change in habitat,
movement and
mortality risk
Application
Corridor
Wildlife RSA
Same as above.
Combined Project
effects on moose
risk.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Wildlife
(Section 4.8)
Mountain Goat
Change in habitat,
movement and
mortality risk
Application
Corridor
Wildlife RSA
Same as above.
Combined Project
effects on mountain goat
risk.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Wildlife
(Section 4.8)
Migratory Birds
Change in habitat,
movement and
mortality risk
Application
Corridor
Wildlife RSA
Same as above.
Combined Project
effects on migratory
birds resulting from
changes in habitat,
movement patterns and
mortality risk.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Wildlife
(Section 4.8)
marine and foreshore
vegetation due to
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
marine and foreshore
vegetation due to
sedimentation.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
Marine
Kelp, Marine Flowering Plants, Benthic and Detached Algae, Red Algae, Green Algae and Phytoplankton
Nearshore and
Nearshore/
• Information on key recommendations for
marine and
Offshore Project
Offshore
foreshore
Footprint
vegetation due to
construction
activities
measures.
Nearshore and
Nearshore/
Same as above.
marine and
Offshore LSA
Offshore
foreshore
vegetation due to
sedimentation
Page 12-35
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-7 Cont'd
Potential
Environmental
Effect
Location
Mitigation Measures
Spatial
Boundary1
Intertidal Bivalves, Dungeness Crab, Tanner Crab, King Crab and Wildlife Fish
Displacement/
Nearshore and
Nearshore/
injury/mortality due
Offshore Project
Offshore
to construction
Footprint
the Project EMP, Section 14.0
measures.
Nearshore and
Increased toxicity
Same as above.
Nearshore/
Offshore Project
and bioavailability
Offshore
Footprint
of contaminants
due to landfall
trenching and
sidecast
Habitat
fragmentation
Nearshore/
Offshore
Nearshore and
Offshore Project
Footprint
Same as above.
Marine Mammals
Disturbance from
construction noise
Nearshore/
Offshore
Nearshore and
Offshore RSA
•
•
•
Note:
1
Specific mitigation measures are provided in
Nisga’a Nation input has been considered
measures.
Potential Residual
Application
Section
Displacement/injury or
mortality of invertebrates
due to construction
activities and
sedimentation.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
Increased toxicity and
bioavailability of
contaminants due to
landfall trenching and
sidecast at the Kitsault
landfall
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
Habitat fragmentation –
effects on Dungeness
crab movement in
Iceberg Bay due to
unburied pipe acting as
a barrier.
Disturbance of marine
mammals during
important foraging
periods.
Potential
Environmental
Effects
Assessment Marine
Environment
(Section 4.4)
The spatial boundaries considered for the potential environmental effects are consistent with the relevant VC as described in Section 12.2.1.3.
Potential Residual Effects
The following are potential residual environmental effects on residents of Nisga’a Lands, Nisga’a Lands or
Nisga’a interests associated with the proposed Project (Table 12-7).
Fish: Nass Salmon, Nass Steelhead, Oolichan and Wildlife Fish
•
Alteration or loss of riparian habitat function during construction.
•
Alteration or loss of riparian habitat function during operations.
•
Alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI at trenched crossings and non-bridged vehicle crossings.
•
Alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI during operations.
•
Increased fish mortality or injury due to increase of suspended sediment within the ZOI during
instream construction at trenched crossings.
•
Disturbance of instream habitat due to a potential increase in access during operations.
•
Increased fish mortality or injury due to increase of suspended sediment during operations.
•
Disturbance of instream habitat due to a potential increase in access during operations.
Page 12-36
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
•
Increased fish mortality or injury during construction activities.
•
Increased potential for fish mortality or injury due to an increase in access during operations.
•
Temporary blockage of fish movements during construction of isolated watercourse crossings.
•
Fish species of conservation concern may be affected by an increase in suspended sediment
concentration, habitat alteration within the ZOI and increased potential for mortality or injury.
•
Displacement, injury or mortality during underwater blasting.
•
Displacement, injury or mortality of nearshore fish due to sedimentation.
•
Disturbance to nearshore fish from construction noise.
Vegetation: Pine Mushroom, Redcedar and Yellow-Cedar
•
Alteration of pine mushroom habitat through direct effects on the Footprint and through indirect
effects adjacent to the Project Footprint.
•
Alteration of redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated habitat through direct effects on the Footprint, and
through indirect effects adjacent to the Project footprint.
Wildlife
•
Combined Project effects on grizzly bear resulting from changes in habitat, movement patterns and
mortality risk.
•
Combined Project effects on moose resulting from changes in habitat, movement patterns and
mortality risk.
•
Combined Project effects on mountain goat resulting from changes in habitat, movement patterns and
mortality risk.
•
Combined Project effects on migratory birds resulting from changes in habitat, movement patterns
and mortality risk.
Marine and Foreshore Plants
•
Alteration or loss of marine and foreshore vegetation due to construction activities.
•
Alteration or loss of marine and foreshore vegetation due to sedimentation.
Intertidal Bivalves, Dungeness Crab, Tanner Crab and King Crab
•
Displacement, injury or mortality of invertebrates due to construction activities.
•
Increased toxicity and bioavailability of contaminants due to landfall trenching and sidecast at the
Kitsault landfall.
•
Habitat fragmentation – effects on Dungeness crab movement in Iceberg Bay due to unburied pipe
acting as a barrier.
•
Displacement, injury or mortality of invertebrates due to sedimentation.
Marine Mammals
•
Disturbance of marine mammals during important foraging periods.
Page 12-37
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Assessment of Potential Residual Effects
Under Section 8(e) of Chapter 10 of the NFA, it is necessary to assess whether the proposed Project can
reasonably be expected to result in any adverse environmental effects on residents of Nisga’a Lands,
Nisga’a Lands or Nisga’a interests. As outlined in the AIR, the nature of adverse environmental effects
are assessed with regard to context, duration, frequency, reversibility and magnitude. Definitions for the
criteria are provided in Section 3.0. Table 12-8 provides an assessment of potential residual effects. This
information is similar to that provided in each relevant EA section, including Fish and Fish Habitat
(Section 4.5), Vegetation (Section 4.6), Wildlife (Section 4.8) and Marine (Section 4.4), without the
significance rating. A significance evaluation is not required in Section 12.0.
TABLE 12-8
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS RELEVANT TO NISGA’A NATION INTERESTS UNDER SECTION 8(E) OF THE NFA
Residual Effect
Criteria Rating
Fish and Fish Habitat
Nass Salmon , Nass Steelhead, Oolichan and Wildlife Fish
Alteration or loss of riparian habitat function
Context: Low to high
during construction activities
Duration: Short-term
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Medium to long-term
Magnitude: Low
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Page 12-38
Effects Characterization Rationale
The sensitivity of riparian habitat and function
varies among streams depending upon the
reliance of resident fish species on the particular
riparian habitat, riparian habitat attributes
(e.g., rarity and importance to different life stages
of fish), as well as the nature and timing of
disturbance. For example, resilience is expected
to be greater in riparian areas with vegetation
communities that recover more rapidly, while
resilience is expected to be lower in riparian
communities subjected to more severe growing
conditions, such as alpine or rain shadow areas.
The successional stage of the plant community
may also affect resilience, with old-growth forests
less resilient than younger forest communities.
The events causing the alteration of riparian
vegetation are construction activities during
construction and decommissioning phases of the
pipeline.
The events causing clearing or disturbance of
riparian vegetation (i.e., construction activities)
are confined to a specified phase of the
assessment period (i.e., construction or
decommissioning phase).
Depending upon the pre-existing vegetation
community (e.g., grasses, shrubs and/or trees).
Based on expected revegetation plans and
associated mitigation which will reduce the
potential effect to a level well within
environmental and/or regulatory standards.
Alteration or loss of riparian vegetation is
expected to occur at all trenched (i.e., isolated or
open-cut) watercourse crossings where riparian
vegetation exists.
Based on a good understanding by the
assessment team of trenched and trenchless
crossing methods, and associated effects on
riparian vegetation.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
during operations
Criteria Rating
Duration: Intermediate to short-term
Frequency: Occasional
Reversibility: Medium to long-term
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI at
trenched crossings and during construction of
vehicle crossings
Frequency: Isolated
Page 12-39
The sensitivity of riparian habitat and function
varies among streams depending upon the
reliance of resident fish species on the particular
riparian habitat, riparian habitat attributes
(e.g., rarity and importance to different life stages
of fish), as well as nature and timing of
disturbance. For example, resilience is expected
to be greater in riparian areas with vegetation
communities that recover more rapidly, while
resilience is expected to be lower in riparian
communities subjected to more severe growing
conditions, such as alpine or rain shadow areas.
The successional stage of the plant community
may also affect resilience, as old-growth forests
are less resilient than younger forest
communities.
The event causing alteration of riparian
vegetation during the operations phase is
maintenance activities which may take less than
two days (i.e., immediate) or may take more than
two days but less than one year (i.e., short-term).
The event causing clearing or disturbance of
riparian vegetation (i.e., maintenance) occurs
intermittently and sporadically during the
operations phase of the assessment period.
Depending upon the pre-existing vegetation
community (e.g., shrubs, grasses or tress) and
the extent of clearing or alteration of riparian
vegetation required for maintenance activities to
take place.
Based on expected revegetation plans and
associated mitigation which will reduce the
potential effect to a level well within
Clearing within the riparian area is not expected
to occur during operations.
Based on the experience of the assessment
team.
The sensitivity of instream habitat varies among
watercourses depending upon the resident fish
species, habitat attributes (e.g., rarity and
importance to different life stages of fish), as well
as the nature and timing of disturbance. For
example, resilience is expected to be greater in
watercourses with habitat features that are less
susceptible to disturbance and fish populations
that are more resilient to perturbations. For
example, streams that support mostly cyprinids
will be more resilient than watercourses that
provide critical spawning habitat for salmonid
populations.
The event causing alteration of instream habitat
is construction of the pipeline which will take less
than two days (i.e., immediate) or may take more
than two days but less than one year
(i.e., short-term) at a given watercourse crossing.
(i.e., construction of the pipeline) is confined to
the construction phase.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI at
trenched crossings and during construction of
vehicle crossings (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Reversibility: Short to medium-term
Magnitude: Low
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI
during operations
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Page 12-40
Any sediments that result in deposition on the
substrate are expected to be flushed from the
system during the first annual freshet following
construction activities; and if any fish habitat
offsetting measures are implemented, they will
likely be implemented during the first year of
construction activities or within the first year
following construction of the proposed Project.
Based on pre-construction consideration given to
the effects of the alteration of instream habitat
and the development and implementation of an
offsetting plan where serious harm to fish or fish
habitat could occur.
Since some watercourses with documented fish
presence will be crossed using trenched
(i.e., isolated or open-cut) crossing methods.
team.
The sensitivity of instream habitat varies among
watercourses depending upon the resident fish
species, habitat attributes (e.g., rarity and
importance to different life stages of fish), as well
as the nature and timing of disturbance. For
example, resilience is expected to be greater in
watercourses with habitat features that are less
susceptible to disturbance and fish populations
that are more resilient to perturbations. For
example, watercourses that support mostly
cyprinids will be more resilient than watercourses
that provide critical spawning habitat for
salmonid populations
during the operations phase is maintenance
activities which may take less than two days
(i.e., immediate) or may take more than two days
but less than one year (i.e., short-term).
(i.e., maintenance) occurs intermittently and
sporadically during the operations phase.
Any sediments that result in deposition on
instream habitat are expected to be flushed from
the system during the first annual freshet event
following maintenance
Based on pre-maintenance consideration given
to the effects of the alteration of instream habitat
and the implementation of an offsetting plan
where serious harm to fish could
Since maintenance activities are expected to
occur occasionally during the operations phase
of the proposed Project.
team.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Increased fish mortality or injury due to increase
of suspended sediment during instream
construction at trenched crossings within the ZOI
Criteria Rating
Duration: Immediate to Short-term
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low to medium
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Disturbance of instream habitat due to a potential
increase in access during operations
Duration: Long-term
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Low
Confidence: Moderate
Page 12-41
The sensitivity of fish species to injury varies
depending upon the susceptibility of the resident
fish species to sediment load and duration of
exposure. For example, cyprinids are generally
more tolerant of elevated suspended sediments
than salmonid species. Resilience at a
population level is dependent upon reproduction
rate (e.g., fecundity, age of maturity) and
availability (and quality) of spawning and rearing
habitat.
The event causing increased suspended
sediment are construction activities confined to
the construction or decommissioning phase of
the proposed Project; at a given watercourse
crossing, water crossing construction may take
less than two days (i.e., immediate), while at
other watercourses it may take more than
two days but less than one year (i.e., short-term).
The event causing fish mortality or injury
(e.g., construction of trenched crossings) is
confined to a specific period (i.e., construction
phase).
The loss of one or more individuals will be
reflected at a population scale for at least one
year, or until those individuals or their genetic
diversity are replaced during the following
spawning season.
Based on the implementation of mitigation
measures proven to be effective, regulatory
authorization and, where warranted, the
implementation of fish habitat offsetting
measures.
Since appropriate mitigation measures will be
implemented to prevent fish injury and/or
mortality.
team.
The events causing increased access are
construction and operation of the pipeline.
The event contributing to the increase in access
is confined to the construction or operations
phase.
Any sediments that result in deposition on
instream habitat are expected to be flushed from
the system during the first annual freshet event
following disturbance.
With the utilization of existing access to the
extent feasible and successful implementation of
mitigative measures to limit access, the potential
residual effect is considered to be within
Since restricted access to the right-of-way will
limit new opportunities for recreational and offroad vehicle use.
team.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Increased potential for fish mortality or injury due
to an increase in access during operations
Criteria Rating
Duration: Long-term
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Short
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Low
Increased fish mortality or injury due to increase
of suspended sediment during operations
Reversibility: Short-term
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Page 12-42
Populations of fish species targeted by fishing
activities will be more sensitive to the potential
increase in access. The sensitivity of fish species
to injury varies depending upon the susceptibility
of the resident fish species to abrasion, physical
stress, temperature shock, decreased oxygen
levels and duration of imposed stress due to
fishing activities. Populations of fish species that
spawn in shallow areas are more susceptible to
the effects of stream fordings as a result of an
increase in access. Resilience at a population
level is dependent on reproduction rate
(e.g., fecundity and age of maturity), and
availability of spawning and rearing habitat.
The events causing increased access are
construction and operation of the pipeline.
The event contributing to increase in access is
confined to the construction or operations phase.
Loss of one or more individuals is reflected at
population scale for at least one year, or until
those individuals can be replaced.
With the utilization of existing access to the
extent feasible and successful implementation of
mitigation measures, the potential residual effect
is considered to be within environmental and/or
regulatory standards.
implemented to limit new opportunities for
recreational and off-road vehicle access and
prevent fish injury and/or mortality
team.
Suspended solids released during maintenance
activities will be carried downstream until they
disperse and/or naturally settle out onto the
substrate.
The sensitivity of fish species to injury varies
depending upon the susceptibility of the resident
fish species to sediment load and duration of
exposure. For example, cyprinids are generally
more tolerant of elevated suspended sediments
than salmonid species. Resilience at a
population level is dependent upon the
reproduction rate (fecundity, age of maturity),
and availability of spawning and rearing habitat.
The events contributing to potential increase in
fish injury and mortality are maintenance
activities that may occur intermittently and
sporadically during the operations phase.
The loss of one or more individuals will be
reflected at a population scale for at least one
year, or until those individuals are replaced
during the next spawning season.
approvals and, where warranted, the
measures.
mortality.
team.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Increased fish mortality or injury during
construction activities
Criteria Rating
Frequency: Isolated
Probability: Low
Temporary blockage of fish movements during
construction of isolated watercourse crossings
Frequency: Isolated to occasional
Reversibility: Immediate to short-term
Magnitude: Low
Probability: High
Page 12-43
The sensitivity of fish species to injury and
mortality varies depending upon the nature and
timing of disturbance, (e.g., blasting, handling of
fish during salvage operations), susceptibility of
the resident fish species to abrasion, physical
stress, pressure changes, temperature shock,
decreased oxygen levels and duration of
imposed stress. Resilience at a population level
is dependent on reproduction rate (fecundity, age
of maturity) and availability of spawning and
rearing habitat.
The event causing fish mortality or injury is
instream construction during construction and
decommissioning phases.
The event causing fish mortality or injury
(e.g., construction of trenched crossings) is
confined to a specific period.
The loss of one or more individuals or their
genetic diversity is reflected at a population scale
for at least one year, or until those individuals or
their genetic diversity can be replaced during the
following spawning season.
authorizations and, where warranted, the
measures.
mortality.
team.
The sensitivity of fish species to temporary
blockage varies depending upon the
susceptibility of the resident fish species. Those
species that undertake migrations as part of their
life cycle, and spawning migrations in particular,
will be more susceptible. Watercourses
supporting spawning runs of anadromous fish
species will be more sensitive, while
watercourses supporting native populations of
cyprinids will be less sensitive. Species that rely
on particular natal streams are more susceptible
as they are less likely to use alternate spawning
locations. Resilience is greater for fish species
with more flexibility in spawning locations.
The event causing blockage of fish movement is
construction of the pipeline which may take less
than two days (i.e., immediate) or may take more
than two days, but less than one year
(i.e., short-term) at a given watercourse crossing.
The event causing blockage of fish movement
(i.e., construction of the watercourse crossing) is
confined to a specific period at a given
watercourse.
Any blockage due to construction in a
watercourse would be removed upon completion
of construction of a given watercourse crossing.
Based on associated mitigation which will reduce
the potential effect to a level well within
Since the Application Corridor crosses
watercourses for which an isolated crossing is
recommended if water is present during
construction.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Temporary blockage of fish movements during
construction of isolated watercourse crossings
(cont’d)
Fish species of conservation concern may be
affected by an increase in suspended sediment
concentration, habitat alteration within the ZOI
and increased potential for mortality or injury
Criteria Rating
team.
Sensitivity of fish species of conservation
concern to increased suspended sediments,
habitat alteration and increased potential for
mortality or injury varies depending on fish
species, their susceptibility to suspended
sediment, habitat attributes (e.g., rarity and
importance to life stages of fish) and
susceptibility to injury and stress. Resilience at
population levels is expected to be greater for
species with high reproductive rates and larger
populations. For example, resilience of cyprinid
species with early maturity will be greater than
species such as white sturgeon that require
many years to reach reproductive age.
The events causing fish species of concern to be
affected are instream construction of the
proposed Project, or maintenance or
decommissioning activities that may take less
than two days (i.e., immediate) or may take
longer than two days but less than one year
(i.e., short-term).
The event causing fish species of concern to be
affected may be confined to a specific period
during construction and decommissioning
phases (i.e., watercourse crossing construction
or decommissioning) or may occur intermittently
and sporadically during the operations phase
(i.e., maintenance activities).
Loss of one or more individuals will be reflected
at a population scale for at least one year, or
until those individuals can be replaced.
The timing of construction activities, the
proposed crossing methods and successful
implementation of mitigativeon measures are
expected to reduce the potential residual effect
on fish species of conservation concern.
Since appropriate construction timing, proposed
crossing methods and mitigativeon measures will
be implemented to prevent fish injury and/or
mortality.
team.
A diversity of fish species including salmon, if
present in the proximately of the blast site, could
be affected by underwater blasting operations.
Pelagic species with swim bladders such as
salmon are more sensitive to high peak pressure
levels compared to species that do not possess
a swim bladder.
Injury and mortality to fish will occur over the
very short time period required for a detonation
event at each blast site.
Detonation occurs intermittently over the
construction period.
Fish use of blasted areas is expected to resume
in less than one year from the cessation of
blasting activities. The degree of mortality (see
magnitude below) is not expected to have a
residual effect on stock status, which would
require a longer reversal period.
Magnitude: Low to Medium
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Displacement, injury or mortality during
underwater blasting
Confidence: High
Context High
Duration: Immediate
Reversibility: Short
Page 12-44
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Displacement, injury or mortality during
underwater blasting (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: High
Probability: High
Displacement, injury or mortality of nearshore
fish due to sedimentation
Context: High
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Disturbance to nearshore fish from construction
noise
Context: Neutral
Frequency: Isolated
Page 12-45
As underwater blasting is likely to cause injury
and mortality to fish at levels above regulatory
standards and will require authorization under
the Fisheries Act. However, with application of
the recommended mitigation, the degree of
mortality and injury is not anticipated to exceed
an environmental standard, such as impacting
the status of specific stocks.
Underwater blasting is highly likely to cause
injury and mortality fish.
Based on a good understanding of cause effect
relationship resulting from underwater blasting,
particularly when accompanied by modelling.
However there is a moderate degree of
uncertainty as to the ability to predict/manage
fish present at the blast site during detonation
events.
Shallow nearshore habitats are a vital rearing
and migration corridor for several juvenile
salmon species, particularly chum and pink
salmon, providing important foraging
opportunities, cover and refuge from larger fish
species. The most likely affect on juvenile fish
occupying this habitat is temporary displacement
to which most species will have moderate
resiliency.
Sedimentation during construction activities will
occur during the construction phase of the
proposed Project.
The event causing disturbance of nearshore
habitat is confined to the construction phase of
the proposed Project.
The effects of sedimentation are expected to be
reversed within 1 year following the completion
of construction and restoration activities.
No losses requiring restoration are anticipated.
Although it is likely that construction activities will
cause some degree of sedimentation in adjacent
habitats and associated fish communities, the
probability of a residual effect on these habitats
and the communities is unlikely.
Based on the experience of the proposed Project
team.
Shallow nearshore habitats are a vital rearing
and migration corridor for several juvenile
salmon species, particularly chum and pink
salmon, providing important foraging
opportunities, cover and refuge from larger fish
species. The most likely effect on juvenile fish
occupying this habitat is temporal displacement
to which most species will have moderate
resiliency
Construction noise will occur during the
nearshore construction phase of the proposed
Project.
Construction noise will occur continually during
the construction phase of the proposed Project.
Construction noise is confined to the construction
phase of the proposed Project, which will be less
than 1 year at the landfall and nearshore marine
sites.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Disturbance to nearshore fish from construction
noise (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Vegetation
Pine Mushroom, Redcedar and Yellow-Cedar
Alteration of pine mushroom habitat through
direct effects on the Footprint and through
indirect effects adjacent to the Project Footprint
Context: High
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Long-term
Probability: High
Page 12-46
Despite the lack of information on continuous
noise levels likely to illicit a behavioural response
in fish, it is reasonable to assume that sound
levels at or near the construction site will result in
behavioural disturbance of some fish species. It
is expected that fish will habituate to temporary
increased noise levels; it is not possible to
predict the degree of habituation for different
species, sound sources and sound levels.
Pipeline construction activities that produce
noise at levels high enough to disturb fish will
occur during the construction phase.
Based on a reasonable understanding of causeeffect relationships using modelling studies and
data from outside the proposed Project area,
however, responses to the construction noise
levels may be highly variable due to local
contextual issues.
Native vegetation areas that support pine
mushrooms are unique and not well understood.
The ectomycorrhizal relationships required for
pine mushroom growth are not thought to be
resilient to disturbance.
Disturbance (clearing) will happen during
construction and restoration will begin following
construction.
Disturbance to pine mushroom habitat is
confined to the clearing phase of construction
because of the length of time it will take for pine
mushroom habitat to re-establish following
disturbance. A repeated effect will not occur until
the pine mushroom habitat has re-established.
Resiliency of the habitat is not well known and is
primarily in mature forest. At gap sizes greater
than approximately 900 m2, a break in the
ectomycorrhizal hyphal network occurs (Durall et
al. 1999). The habitat along with the
ectomycorrhizal hyphal network will take more
than 10 years to become re-established.
Approximately 43.36 ha and 11.09 ha of potential
pine mushroom habitat is encountered by the
footprints of the combined Cypress to
Cranberry/Kitsault route and the combined
Cypress to Cranberry/Nasoga route, respectively
(i.e., 20.7% of the total 210 ha of the potential
mushroom habitat encountered by the footprint
of the combined Cypress to Cranberry/Kitsault
route and 6.8% of the total 163 ha of potential
pine mushroom habitat encountered by the
footprint of the combined Cypress to
Cranberry/Nasoga route).
The Application Corridor traverses site series
with the potential to support pine mushroom
habitat.
Pine mushroom habitat is not well understood
and there have been limited studies on the
effects of development on pine mushroom.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Alteration of redcedar and yellow-cedardominated habitat if mitigative measures do not
completely protect a site through direct effects on
the Footprint, and through indirect effects
adjacent to the Project footprint
Criteria Rating
Context: Neutral to High
Reversibility: Medium to Long-term
Magnitude: Low
Probability: High
Wildlife
Grizzly Bear
Combined Project effects on grizzly bear
resulting from changes in habitat, movement and
mortality risk
Context: High
Frequency: Periodic
Page 12-47
Yellow-cedar and western redcedar have high
cultural values and will take considerable time to
regenerate. Pre-construction surveys will
determine how much yellow-cedar and western
redcedar will be affected by construction of the
proposed Project.
Disturbance (clearing) will happen during
construction and restoration will begin following
construction. Any daylighting of pipeline or
service/maintenance digs during operations will
also be of limited duration.
Alteration of western redcedar and yellow-cedar
community vegetation will predominantly occur
during clearing for pipeline construction and
sporadically for maintenance activities
(e.g., brushing) during the operations phase of
The effects on the cedar species are expected to
be reversible in the medium-term as cedar trees
will re-establish within 10 years.
Due to the large amount of western redcedar and
yellow-cedar-dominated communities located
within the Terrestrial Vegetation RSA in the Nass
Wildlife Area and the low amount that will be
affected by the proposed Footprint, the
communities are widespread in the area.
The Application Corridor traverses site series
with the potential to support western redcedar
and yellow-cedar-dominated communities.
Although the assessment of this potential
residual effect is based on incomplete TEM data,
the analysis is informed by past pipeline projects
and the professional experience of the
assessment team.
Grizzly bear is a species of conservation concern
provincially (Blue-listed) and federally
(COSEWIC Special Concern), largely due to
extensive range and population reductions
influenced by development and habitat
fragmentation, and human related conflicts and
mortality. Within the NWA the proposed Project
crosses the proposed Grizzly Bear Wildlife
Habitat Area (WHA 6-282), and Class 1 and 2
habitats under the Order for the Central and
North Coast. Refer to Table 4.8-10 in Section 4.8
for additional context.
The events causing potential adverse effects are
construction and operational activities
(e.g., monitoring, vegetation management and
site-specific maintenance). Pipeline construction
activities for the initial pipeline are assumed to
begin in 2016 with an in-service date of 2019. If
and as developed for the purpose of this
assessment, pipeline construction activities for
the second pipeline are assumed to begin in
2020 with an in-service date of 2023 and
complete capacity achieved by 2026.
The events causing potential adverse effects
(i.e., clearing of the Project Footprint, traffic and
activity) will occur during construction and
intermittently during operations for monitoring,
vegetation control and maintenance.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Combined Project effects on grizzly bear
mortality risk (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Moose
Combined Project effects on moose resulting
from changes in habitat, movement and mortality
risk
Context: Neutral
Potential adverse effects are reversible in the
long-term, once access control measures are
implemented and native vegetation regenerates
over the Project Footprint. Regeneration of
herbaceous and shrub-dominated vegetation on
the footprint during the operations phase may be
of some habitat value for bears if public access is
effectively controlled. Restoration of forested
habitats affected by the proposed Project will
take decades to achieve mature and late seral
stages.
The proposed Project will potentially affect
grizzly bears through all three effect pathways:
changes in habitat, movement and mortality risk.
Habitat model results indicate that predicted
change in effective spring grizzly bear habitat in
the NWA is relatively small (i.e., approximately
5% or less of modeled habitat currently available
in the Wildlife LSA) (Coastal region in Table 1.812 and Figure 4.8-7 in Section 4.8). Mortality risk
is considered the key effect pathway for grizzly
bear potentially resulting from the proposed
Project. The proposed mitigation, including
development and implementation of a bearhuman conflict management plan, avoiding
locating temporary facilities and roads in key
grizzly bear habitats, and measures to reduce
new access and control access where it cannot
be avoided, are consistent with regional resource
management objectives and strategies, and will
reduce the magnitude of potential adverse
effects from the proposed Project on Grizzly
Bear. The magnitude of the combined residual
effect of the proposed Project on Grizzly Bear is
concluded to be medium.
The proposed Project will alter habitat, cause
sensory disturbance and create new access
within GBPUs crossed by the Application
Corridor.
The determination of significance is based on a
good understanding of cause-effect relationships
and data pertinent to the proposed Project area.
Additional work is warranted to evaluate the
interaction of the proposed pipeline route and
temporary facilities during the finalization of
routing and siting (e.g., creation of “loop” access;
relationship between Class 1 and Class 2
foraging habitat and high-traffic/activity Project
facilities), in order to identify additional mitigation
details. Uncertainty associated with effectiveness
of mitigation measures (e.g., interim access
control between construction of the initial and
second pipelines, and road deactivation
success), can be reduced through
implementation of a monitoring program and
adoption of adaptive management principles to
ensure mitigation effectiveness.
Moose are highly valued as a game species and
for traditional and cultural purposes. Recent
declines have been observed in the Nass moose
population in the NWA. BC MFLNRO and the
NLG actively monitor and manage moose
populations. Refer to Table 4.8-10 in Section 4.8
for additional context.
Page 12-48
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
risk (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Frequency: Periodic
Magnitude: Low
Page 12-49
long-term, once native vegetation regenerates
over the Project Footprint. Regeneration of
shrub-dominated vegetation on the footprint
during the operations phase will provide browse
for moose. Restoration of forested habitats
affected by the proposed Project will take
decades to achieve mature and late seral stages.
moose through all three effect pathways:
The proposed Kitsault and Nasoga routes
traverse draft UWRs for moose (u-6-009 and
u-6-018). Habitat model results indicate the
predicted change in effective moose winter
feeding and moose winter security/thermal
habitat in the NWA is relatively small for both
proposed routes (i.e., less than 3% of modeled
habitat currently available in the Wildlife LSA)
(Nass and North Coast segments in Figure 4.8-6
in Section 4.8). Moose use early successional
stages for foraging, and may therefore benefit
from an increase in early successional habitat
due to the proposed Project. The draft Nass
Moose Recovery Plan identifies collaboration
with pipeline companies as a potential source of
early seral vegetation for moose (Nisga’a Fish
and Wildlife Committee 2013). Adverse residual
effects of the proposed Project on moose will be
reduced through mitigation to reduce the Project
Footprint in UWRs to the extent feasible, avoid or
limit creating new access, reclaim the disturbed
Project Footprint to native vegetation, promote
early seral vegetation that provides browse, and
avoid construction activities in winter range
during winter. Given the current status of Nass
moose populations, additional mitigation is
warranted to reduce the proposed Project’s
residual effects. WCGT is committed to further
discussions with the Nisga’a during the
Application review to consider additional
potential mitigation measures specific to the
Nass area, as appropriate. This could potentially
include contribution to and/or participation in
Nass moose programs or studies referenced in
conditions 20 and 21 of the Environmental
Assessment Certificate for the Kitsault Mine
project.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
risk (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Low
Probability: High
Mountain Goat
Combined Project effects on mountain goat
mortality risk
Context: High
Frequency: Periodic
Magnitude: Low
Page 12-50
The proposed mitigation is consistent with the
General Wildlife Measures for the proposed
moose UWRs, regional resource management
objectives and strategies, and management
actions outlined in the draft Nass Moose
Recovery Plan (Nisga’a Fish and Wildlife
Committee 2013). The magnitude of the
combined residual effect of the proposed Project
on Moose is concluded to be low.
The proposed Project will alter habitat, cause
sensory disturbance and create new access
within moose habitat.
Uncertainty associated with effectiveness of
mitigation measures (e.g., interim access control
between construction of the initial and second
pipelines, and road deactivation success), can
be reduced through implementation of a
monitoring program and adoption of adaptive
management principles to ensure mitigation
effectiveness.
Industrial activities cause habitat changes that
facilitate access and disturbance that displaces
mountain goats from preferred habitats. MGMT
(2010) reported that mountain goats appear to
be more sensitive than other ungulates to
human, helicopter and industrial disturbance.
Refer to Table 4.8-10 in Section 4.8 for additional
context.
long-term, once native vegetation regenerates
over the Project Footprint.
There is one UWR (u-6-010) for Mountain Goat
along the proposed route in the NWA. A tunnel is
proposed along the Nasoga route to install the
pipeline(s), which will avoid disturbing habitat in
the UWR u-6-010 for mountain goat, as well as
the associated 500 m buffer. Mitigation to avoid
creating new access to the extent feasible, and
reclaiming the Project Footprint to natural
vegetation will reduce potential adverse effects
of the proposed Project in areas adjacent to the
UWR, and other habitats that may provide
habitat for Mountain Goat. The magnitude of the
on Mountain Goat is concluded to be low.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Combined Project effects on mountain goat
Criteria Rating
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Migratory Birds
Combined Project effects on migratory birds
mortality risk
Frequency: Periodic
Page 12-51
The proposed tunnel along the Nasoga route will
avoid Project effects on identified mountain goat
UWR habitat. In general, the proposed route will
avoid terrain features that provide suitable
escape terrain for mountain goat. Given the
length of the Application Corridor overlapping the
known extent of mountain goat distribution in BC,
it is likely that there will be some (limited)
interaction of the proposed Project with mountain
goat habitat (e.g., thermal cover, dispersal
habitat).
The proposed tunnel alleviates uncertainty with
timing of activities to avoid sensitive periods and
with reclaiming habitat in UWR u-6-010.
Migratory birds occur throughout the NWA. The
following Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat KIs include
migratory birds that occur in the NWA:
mature/old forest birds; early seral forest birds;
grassland/shrubland birds; riparian and water
birds; common nighthawk; olive-sided flycatcher;
and marbled murrelet. Refer to Table 4.8-14 in
Section 4.8 for additional context on each KI.
Events causing potential adverse effects
(i.e., vegetation removal during construction or
site-specific maintenance events; vegetation
control during operation) will occur intermittently
but repeatedly over the assessment period.
Regeneration of forest vegetation will begin
during the operations phase over much of the
Project Footprint, with the exception of facility
sites and portions of the proposed pipeline rightof-way that will be maintained with low
vegetation for maintenance and operation.
Restoration of forested habitat to mature or late
seral stages will take decades. Sensory
disturbance and mortality risk associated with
construction is reversible immediately upon
completion of activities. Sensory disturbance
from compressor and meter stations will occur
continuously over the operations phase, and is
reversible upon decommissioning. The
reversibility of all three effects mechanisms
(i.e., change in habitat, movement and mortality
risk) combined is long-term.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Combined Project effects on migratory birds
Criteria Rating
Probability: High
Confidence: High
migratory birds through all three effect pathways:
Habitat model results indicate that for most
migratory bird KIs, the proposed Project will
reduce effective nesting habitat in the NWA
(Nass and North Coast segments in Figure 4.8-8
in Section 4.8). Where clearing of forested
vegetation creates open habitats for birds that
prefer these habitat types (i.e., Common
Nighthawk, Grassland/Shrubland Birds),
construction of the proposed Project will initially
create additional habitat. The proportionate
change in habitat for species with a relatively
small area of effective habitat under existing
conditions (e.g., Common Nighthawk, Marbled
Murrelet) is much higher than for those KIs
where habitat is more readily available within the
Wildlife LSA (e.g., Mature/Old Forest Birds,
Olive-sided Flycatcher). The suite of mitigation to
address combined Project effects on birds is
consistent with the available guidelines and
regulatory recommendations, and is expected to
reduce the potential residual effects of the
proposed Project on migratory birds. With the
application of mitigation, the magnitude of the
on migratory birds is concluded to range from
low to medium.
The Application Corridor crosses habitats
inhabited by migratory birds.
The assessment is based on a good
understanding of cause-effect relationships and
data pertinent to the Project area.
Marine
Alteration or loss of marine and foreshore
Bladed kelp. Red and green algae and rockweed
Context: Low to Neutral
vegetation due to construction activities
vegetated areas are considered to have a high
resilience to imposed stresses due to their ability
to re-colonize naturally and relatively rapidly. Salt
marsh vegetation has a moderate resilience to
imposed stresses and generally must be actively
restored. Eelgrass is considered to have low
resilience to stress but very little eelgrass, if any,
will be directly affected by trenching or
sidecasting at the Iceberg, Nasoga or Kitsault
landfall sites.
The event causing the disturbance of nearshore
habitat will occur during the construction of the
landfalls, which is anticipated to be several
months at each landfall site for both the Initial
Project and any subsequent second project.
Frequency: Isolated
Due to the time it will take for areas to be reReversibility: Medium-term
vegetated. Based on previous experience,
recolonization of rockweed and bladed kelp
vegetated areas will occur within a 1-5 year
period, with bladed kelps colonizing within 1-2
years and rockweed displaying a more variable
settlement time frame. Salt marsh restoration will
take 3-5 years.
Page 12-52
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
vegetation due to construction activities (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Low
Probability: High
Confidence: High
vegetation due to sedimentation
Context: Low to Neutral
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Intertidal Bivalves, Dungeness, Tanner and King Crab
Displacement, injury or mortality due to
Context: low to Neutral
construction activities
Frequency: Isolated
Page 12-53
Based on anticipated restoration plans and
associated mitigation which is expected to
effectively reduce the effects on nearshore
habitat.
Clearing or disturbance of riparian, intertidal and
shallow subtidal vegetation is expected to occur
at all trenched areas.
assessment team of the disturbance and ability
to restore habitat in a nearshore setting.
Bladed kelp, red and green algae and rockweed
vegetated areas are considered to have a high
resilience to imposed stresses due to their ability
to relatively rapidly naturally re-colonize. Salt
marsh vegetation has a moderate resilience to
imposed stresses and generally must be actively
restored. Eelgrass is considered to have low
resilience to stress but, at all landfall sites, there
is little to no eelgrass within 1 km of the landfall
trenching area with the exception of small
patches of intertidal eelgrass on the drying
mudflat immediately north of the Echo Cove
landfall area.
Sedimentation will result from construction
activities within the construction phase, which is
anticipated to be several months at each landfall
site for the Initial Project as well as any
subsequent second project.
No loss of vegetated habitats requiring
restoration or compensation is anticipated as a
result of sediment re-suspension and deposition.
Although it is likely construction activities will
vegetated habitats, the probability that this will
result in an effect on vegetated habitats adjacent
to the proposed Project Footprint is low.
Based on past pipeline projects and the
experience of the assessment team
Intertidal clams, if present within the construction
footprint, would have low resiliency to planned
construction activity. In contrast, crab are highly
mobile and relatively resilient to the planned
construction activity at the Kitsault, Iceberg Bay
and Nasoga landfall sites.
The event causing the disturbance to nearshore
habitat will occur during the construction phase
of the proposed Project.
Crab will readily recolonize disturbed areas
during and following construction. Intertidal
clams will colonize suitable habitat within 1 year
of completion of construction activities.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Displacement, injury or mortality due to
construction activities (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Low
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Increased toxicity and bioavailability of
contaminants due to landfall trenching and
sidecast at the Kitsault landfall
Context: Neutral
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Habitat fragmentation – effects on Dungeness
crab movement in Iceberg Bay due to unburied
pipe acting as a barrier.
Duration: Long-term
Frequency: Continuous
Page 12-54
No intertidal clam beds were documented within
the proposed construction footprints at the
Kitsault, Iceberg Bay or Nasoga landfalls and
therefore loss of intertidal clams due to
construction will be negligible Temporary
displacement is the main potential effect to crabs
and will be alleviated by mitigation and
restoration plans which are expected to
effectively mitigate the effects in the short-term.
Trenching and sidecasting of dredged material
will result in disturbance of intertidal and shallow
subtidal invertebrate communities, at all landfall
sites. With the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, mortality and injury to
intertidal clams and crab will likely occur but at
negligible to low magnitude
assessment team of the level of disturbance in a
nearshore setting.
Most organisms present in the area are currently
exposed to re-suspended sediments as a result
of tidal forces and are considered to be
moderately resilient to sediment re-distribution
and re-suspension.
Sedimentation and related water quality effects
will be limited to the construction phase and will
be episodic within that phase, lasting 60-70 days
for excavation and 50-60 days for backfilling.
Most construction activities causing
sedimentation and related water quality effects
will be completed within a 60-day period at
Kitsault during the construction phase of the
Project.
Increased bioavailability of contaminants to biota
such as bivalves and Dungeness crab resulting
from increase sedimentation are not expected to
persist longer than one year post-construction
The results of a human health risk assessment
(Appendix 2-P) suggest that any increase in
contaminant levels in biota such as bivalves and
Dungeness crab as a result of landfall
construction activity at Kitsault will be negligible
relative to existing baseline levels
Construction will result in sediment resuspension with short term increase in potential
toxicity and bioavailability of contaminants.
The evaluation is based on reasonable
understanding of cause-effect relationships
observed in studies conducted for the proposed
Project area.
Without a more thorough knowledge of the ability
of Dungeness crab to cross a 48” pipeline it is
not possible to provide a definite assessment of
the resiliency of these species to the potential
barrier effect of the pipelines on the seabed
The pipelines will retain the potential to act as a
barrier to movement throughout the operations
phase of the proposed Project.
The potential barrier effect will continue
throughout operational phase of the proposed
Project.
The effect is reversible through burial or lowering
of the pipelines, however, if not lowered, the
potential effect will continue throughout the
operations phase of the proposed Project.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Habitat fragmentation – effects on Dungeness
crab movement in Iceberg Bay due to unburied
pipe acting as a barrier. (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Medium
Displacement, injury or mortality of intertidal
clams and crab due to sedimentation.
Context: Low
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Marine Mammals
Disturbance of marine mammal during important
foraging periods
Context: High
Frequency: Isolated
Page 12-55
If Dungeness crab are unable to cross unburied
48” pipe in Iceberg Bay, they will be excluded
from a small portion of seabed habitat in the
southern portion of Iceberg Bay. This is not
anticipated to effect key aspects of the life cycle
requirements of the local population and over
such a short length any barrier effect can be
mitigated by providing bridging material at
several locations along the transit through
Iceberg Bay.
There is a moderate probability that the 48”
pipeline in Iceberg Bay will act as a barrier to the
movement of some mobile invertebrate species.
The recommended mitigation strategy, if
required, is consisted to be effective across the
short Iceberg Bay transit based on the collective
experience of the assessment team.
Intertidal clams, if present within immediately
adjacent areas subject to high levels of
sedimentation would have low resiliency to
residual impacts of sedimentation resulting in
habitat change. In contrast crab are highly
mobile and relatively resilient to sedimentation
effects.
Sedimentation during construction activities will
occur during the construction phase of the
proposed Project.
Sedimentation is not expected to result in any
residual effects on Dungeness or tanner/king
crab due to the mobility of these species and
their general habitat preference for fine sediment
substrate. The nearshore landfall surveys at
Kitsault, Iceberg Bay and Nasoga did not
document any intertidal clam beds in areas
subject to high levels of sedimentation due to
trenching
Although it is likely that construction activities will
habitats, the probability of a residual effect on
these habitats and the communities is unlikely.
Based on the experience of the proposed Project
team with past dredging projects.
The modelled noise levels have the potential to
illicit a behavioural response in cetaceans
present in the Marine Habitats and Ecosystems
RSA, including the NWA. As these behavioural
responses can vary it is difficult to predict each
species’ resiliency to the potential stress. Due to
their low HT across frequencies generated by
construction activities, humpback whales are
considered to be the most sensitive cetacean
species to offshore construction noise.,
Although construction noise will occur throughout
the construction phase of the proposed Project
(up to 8 years) it will be restricted to < 4 months
on a continuous basis at any one site.
Noise will occur during the construction phase of
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-8 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Disturbance of marine mammal during important
foraging periods (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Although construction noise will occur throughout
the construction phase of the proposed Project
(up to 8 years) it will be restricted to < 4 months
on a continuous basis at any one site.
Based on the modelling study, sound levels will
approach and exceed documented thresholds for
behavioural response, but will not exceed
thresholds considered to possibly harm or injure
marine mammals.
Pipeline construction activities that produce
noise within the marine environment will occur
during the construction phase.
Based on a reasonable understanding of causeeffect relationships using modeling studies and
data from outside the proposed Project area.
However, responses to the construction noise
levels may be highly variable due to local
contextual issues, particularly the degree of
habituation to anthropogenic noise
Fish and Fish Habitat
Fish species of interest to Nisga’a, such as Nass salmon, Nass steelhead and oolichan, and their habitat
are assessed below under a collective terms ‘fish’ and ‘fish habitat’.
Alteration or Loss of Riparian Habitat Function During Construction Activities
Riparian areas contribute to fish habitat through the provision of shade, overhead cover, undercut banks,
nutrient input, woody debris, bank stability and filtration of sediments and contaminants. Riparian
vegetation within the construction right-of-way and temporary workspace will be disturbed during the
construction phase of the proposed Project at all trenched (i.e., isolated or open-cut) and possibly some
trenchless (e.g., drilling fluid release in riparian area or clearing the area for entry/exit pads) watercourse
crossings, as well as watercourses where a temporary or permanent vehicle crossing will be installed.
Construction of temporary and permanent facilities is planned to occur at least 30 m away from any
watercourse; however, it may result in loss or alteration of riparian habitat depending on the stream
classification and its associated riparian area. In cases of construction of permanent vehicle crossings
and roads in the riparian area, the loss or alteration of riparian habitat function may be long-term,
depending on the decommissioning plans and the structure installed.
During decommissioning, some disturbance to riparian vegetation is also anticipated (e.g., when digging
bell holes). The extent of riparian disturbance during the decommissioning phase is dependent on the
type of construction activity required (e.g., cut-and-pull or isolation) and may range from minimal to
equivalent to that of construction activities during the construction phase.
During construction activities, disturbance of riparian vegetation will be kept to a minimum, leaving as
much existing riparian vegetation intact as practical and efforts to control sedimentation and erosion in
disturbed areas will be implemented. The alteration of riparian vegetation will also be reduced during
frozen ground conditions. Disturbed bank areas will be re-established and riparian areas will be seeded
following construction activities with appropriate native seed mix along with a quick establishing cover
crop. Riparian shrubs and trees will, where appropriate, be planted in temporary workspaces in riparian
zones. Revegetation plans and associated mitigation will be included in the Environmental Management
Plan (EMP) (Appendix 3-A). Application of appropriate mitigation and offsetting measures will reduce the
potential residual effect and contribute to addressing the relevant Aboriginal concerns (e.g., effects of
proposed Project construction activities on riparian habitat and potential disturbance to spawning areas)
(Appendix 2-K).
The potential residual effect of loss or alteration of riparian habitat function during construction is
reversible in the medium to long-term, depending upon the pre-existing vegetation community
Page 12-56
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
(e.g., shrubs regenerate within several years; however, tree canopy regrowth is expected to extend into
the long-term). The potential residual effect is considered to be well within environmental and regulatory
standards (BC MOF 1995, CAPP et al. 2005) and, consequently, of low magnitude. The likelihood of an
alteration or loss of riparian habitat occurring is high, since it is expected to occur at all trenched
(i.e., isolated or open-cut) watercourse crossings where riparian vegetation exists (Table 12-8).
Consequently, the potential residual effect of loss or alteration of riparian habitat function during
construction is considered to be not significant.
Alteration or Loss of Riparian Habitat Function During Operations
Routine vegetation control along the pipeline right-of-way during the operations phase will exclude
riparian areas. For the purposes of meeting surveillance and monitoring requirements, routine vegetation
control along the right-of-way during operations will be implemented to maintain an appropriate width
along the pipeline route free of large, deep-rooted woody vegetation (i.e., trees). However, situations may
occur during the life of the pipeline where riparian vegetation disturbance may be necessary to
accommodate maintenance activities (e.g., in the event of a flood event that causes scouring over the
pipeline trench that would require measures to restore depth of cover and pipe integrity). Application of
appropriate mitigation and offsetting measures will reduce the potential residual effect and contribute to
addressing the relevant Aboriginal concerns (e.g., effects of proposed Project construction activities on
riparian habitat and potential disturbance to spawning areas) (Appendix 2-K).
The potential residual effect of loss or alteration of riparian habitat function within the right-of-way during
operations is reversible in the medium to long-term, depending upon the pre-existing vegetation
community (e.g., grasses, shrubs and/or trees) and the extent of clearing or alteration required for
maintenance activities. The potential residual effect is also considered to be well within environmental
and regulatory standards, and consequently, of low magnitude. The likelihood of an alteration or loss of
riparian habitat occurring is low, since clearing within the riparian area is not expected to occur during
operations. Consequently, the potential residual effect of loss or alteration of riparian habitat function
within the right-of-way during operations is considered not significant.
Alteration of Instream Habitat within the Zone of Influence at Trenched Crossings and During
Construction of Vehicle Crossings
Instream construction of trenched crossings and vehicle crossings will take place during the construction
phase. During the decommissioning phase after the life of the proposed Project, instream construction
may be required for vehicle crossings and, in some limited cases, for pipe removal. The proposed
crossing techniques and mitigation measures have taken into consideration the sensitivity of the
watercourses including habitat characteristics, fish species present and instream work windows, in
addition to the construction schedule and technically and economically feasible mitigation to be
implemented at each crossing. The potential effects associated with the introduction of fine sediments in
the water column are addressed in one of the following subsections.
Bank stabilization through the application of native seed mixes with quick-germinating cover mixtures, in
addition to enhanced revegetation efforts including geotextiles or biostabilization, will be preferred
methods of stabilizing watercourse banks disturbed due to construction of trenched crossings and vehicle
crossings.
The successful implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential for serious
harm to fish due to construction activities. Nevertheless, DFO authorization will be obtained should
serious harm to fish (i.e., death to fish or permanent alteration to or destruction of fish habitat) be
unavoidable after application of avoidance and mitigation measures. Consequently, regardless of whether
serious harm to fish is expected due to construction activities, the residual effects are expected to be of
low magnitude and reversible in the short to medium-term (Table 12-8). Application of appropriate
mitigation and offsetting measures will reduce the potential residual effect and contribute to addressing
the relevant Nisga’a Nation concerns (e.g., effects of proposed Project construction activities on instream
habitat and spawning areas) (Appendix 2-K).
The potential residual effect of alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI at trenched crossings and
during construction of vehicle crossings is reversible in the short to medium-term, since any sediments
that result in deposition on the substrate are expected to be flushed from the system following the first
Page 12-57
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
annual freshet after construction activities. If any fish habitat offsetting measures are implemented, they
will be implemented in accordance with a schedule developed in consultation with the regulators during
the year of construction and/or within the first year following the proposed initial pipeline and/or the
second pipeline, if and as developed, of the proposed Project. The potential residual effect is also
considered to be well within environmental and regulatory standards, and consequently of low magnitude,
based on pre-construction consideration given to the effects of the alteration of instream habitat and the
development of an offsetting plan where serious harm to fish is expected. The likelihood of alteration of
instream habitat occurring is high as some watercourses with documented fish presence will be crossed
using trenched (i.e., isolated or open-cut) crossing methods. Consequently, the potential residual effect of
alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI at trenched crossings and during construction of vehicle
crossings is considered not significant.
Alteration of Instream Habitat within the Zone of Influence During Operations
Routine maintenance will occur during the life of the pipeline and instream disturbance may be necessary
to accommodate the maintenance activities (e.g., integrity digs and bank stabilization).
The potential residual effect of alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI during operations is reversible
in the short to medium-term, since any sediments that result in deposition on the substrate are expected
to be flushed from the system during the first annual freshet following maintenance. The potential residual
effect is also considered to be well within environmental and regulatory standards, and consequently of
low magnitude, based on pre-maintenance consideration given to the effects of the alteration of instream
habitat and the implementation of an offsetting plan where serious harm to fish or fish habitat could occur.
The likelihood of an alteration of instream habitat occurring is low, since disturbance to instream habitat is
unlikely to occur due to occasional maintenance activities during the operations phase of the proposed
Project. Consequently, the potential residual effect of alteration of instream habitat within the ZOI during
operations is considered not significant. Application of appropriate mitigation and offsetting measures will
reduce the potential residual effect and contribute to addressing the relevant Aboriginal concerns
(e.g., effects of proposed Project construction activities on instream habitat and spawning areas)
(Appendix 2-K).
Increased Fish Mortality or Injury Due to Increase of Suspended Sediment within the ZOI During
Instream Construction at Trenched Crossings and Vehicle Crossings
Suspended sediment released at isolated crossings during instream activities, runoff from the
construction right-of-way and from erosion events can have behavioural (e.g., avoidance) sub-lethal
(e.g., irritation of gill tissue) and lethal (e.g., suffocation of developing embryos) effects on fish, and can
also cause downstream sediment deposition that alters substrate composition and modifies the
availability and suitability of habitat for spawning, overwintering and rearing (Anderson et al. 1996,
Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Either as a proposed or contingency crossing method, the proposed
Project will involve several isolated crossings under flowing conditions during the construction phase. The
specific need (e.g., proposed or contingency crossing method), duration and scheduling of these isolated
while flowing crossings will not be confirmed until the permitting stage of the proposed Project. DFO
authorization will be obtained should serious harm to fish be deemed unavoidable. Where this could
occur, mitigation and offsetting requirements will be confirmed during the permitting stage through
discussions with appropriate regulatory agencies, as well as during stakeholder consultations, to ensure
the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries.
Application of appropriate mitigation and offsetting measures will reduce the potential residual effect and
contribute to addressing the relevant Aboriginal concerns (e.g., effects of the proposed Project
construction activities on instream habitat and spawning areas, potential erosion and sedimentation from
construction activities, and changes to water quality affecting the overall health of fish) (Appendix 2-K).
Water quality monitoring will be conducted to monitor for turbidity, TSS and, in some cases, dissolved
oxygen content during instream activities at selected, isolated fish-bearing crossings to monitor for
exceedances to the CCME guidelines (CCME 2007) and BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines (BC
MOE 2001). If and as exceedances are encountered, a mitigation strategy will be developed that is based
on research such as Birtwell (1999), DFO (2000) and Newcombe (1994).
Minor releases of sediment may be associated with the installation and use of vehicle crossings. Although
elevated suspended sediment concentrations may result from instream construction and vehicle crossing
Page 12-58
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
use, pulses of suspended solids are generally expected to settle out of the water column within the ZOI in
a time frame of less than eight hours.
The potential residual effect of increased fish mortality or injury due to an increase of suspended
sediment during instream construction at trenched and vehicle crossings within the ZOI is considered
reversible in the short-term, since loss of one or more individuals is reflected at a population scale for at
least one year, or until those individuals or their genetic diversity are replaced during the following
spawning season. The potential residual effect is considered to be of low to medium magnitude, since
instream activities will be conducted in accordance with the Self-Assessment Process and Measures to
Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat, provincial guidelines as well as applicable federal and
provincial approvals. The likelihood of increased fish mortality or injury due to an increase of suspended
sediment during instream construction at trenched and vehicle crossings within the ZOI occurring is low
since appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent fish injury and/or mortality.
Consequently, the residual effect is considered not significant (Table 12-8).
Increased Fish Mortality or Injury Due to Increase of Suspended Sediment During Operations
Routine maintenance will occur during the life of the pipeline to ensure pipeline integrity, and instream
disturbance may be necessary to accommodate the maintenance activities (e.g., integrity digs and bank
stabilization). Suspended sediment released at isolated crossings during instream activities, runoff from
the construction right-of-way and from erosion events can have behavioural (e.g., avoidance) sub-lethal
(e.g., irritation of gill tissue) and lethal (e.g., suffocation of developing embryos) effects on fish, and can
also cause downstream sediment deposition that alters substrate composition and modifies the
availability and suitability of habitat for spawning, overwintering and rearing (Anderson et al. 1996,
Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Application of appropriate mitigation and offsetting measures will
(e.g., effects of proposed Project construction activities on fish, potential erosion and sedimentation from
construction activities, and changes to water quality affecting the overall health of fish) (Appendix 2-K).
The potential residual effect of increased fish mortality or injury due to an increase of suspended
sediment during operations is considered reversible in the short-term, since the loss of one or more
individuals is reflected at a population scale for at least one year or until those individuals or their genetic
diversity can be replaced. The potential residual effect is also considered of low to high magnitude, since
the instream activities will be conducted in accordance with the Self-Assessment Process and Measures
to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat, provincial guidelines and applicable federal and
provincial approvals. The likelihood is low since appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to
prevent fish injury and/or mortality. Consequently, the potential residual effect is considered not
significant.
Increased Fish Mortality or Injury During Construction Activities
In addition to the adverse effects of sediment release, certain activities during construction and
decommissioning phases may also lead to an increase in fish mortality or injury. Shock waves in the
water column created by detonation of explosives during trench blasting, instream isolation and water
withdrawal at or downstream of the crossing sites may cause sub-lethal and/or lethal effects on fish. Fish
salvage efforts may contribute to fish injury and lead to some fish mortality. Removing fish from water
even for a short period of time during cold ambient temperatures (e.g., -20°C) has the potential to
compromise fish health (e.g., ice forms on wet netting when it is held out of the water and may cause fish
injury; and if fish are accidentally held out of the water for more than a few seconds during transfer or
handling, the potential for freezing temperatures to affect the fish increases). Application of appropriate
mitigation and offsetting measures will reduce the potential residual effect and contribute to addressing
the relevant Aboriginal concerns (e.g., effects of the proposed Project construction activities on fish)
(Appendix 2-K).
The potential residual effect of increased fish mortality or injury during construction activities is considered
reversible in the short-term, since loss of one or more individuals is reflected at a population scale for at
least 1 year or until those individuals or their genetic diversity can be replaced during the following
spawning season. The potential residual effect is also considered to be of low to medium magnitude,
since instream activities will be conducted in accordance with the Self-Assessment Process and
Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat, provincial guidelines, and applicable federal
Page 12-59
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
and provincial approvals. The likelihood is low since appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented
to prevent fish injury and/or mortality. Consequently, the potential residual effect of increased fish
mortality or injury during construction activities is considered not significant.
Disturbance of Instream Habitat Due to a Potential Increase in Access During Operations
The Application Corridor may traverse the Nisga’a Lands via either the Nasoga route or the Kitsault
Alternate route. Within Nisga’a Lands, the Kitsault Alternate route is not contiguous with any existing
linear rights-of-way. Conversely, the Nasoga route is contiguous with existing power lines and all-season
public highway rights-of-way for approximately 24.7 km or 25.6%, of the total corridor length. Several
alternate routes are proposed along the Nasoga route in the Lower Nass River sub-basin and include the
following: the Gitlaxt’aamiks Alternate route (KPN 662.9 to KPN 664.8); the Nisga’a Highway Alternate
route (KPN 681.4 to KPN 684.7); the Ksi Mat’in Alternate route (KPN 696.7 to KPN 698.5); and the Nass
Bay Tunnel Alternate route (KPN 727.1 to KPN 734.4). The Gitlaxt’aamiks Alternate route is contiguous
with existing power lines right-of-way for approximately 1.05 km or 36.7%, of its total corridor length. The
Nisga’a Highway Alternate route is contiguous with existing all-season public highway rights-of-way for
approximately 2.5 km or 77.3%, of its total corridor length. The Ksi Mat’in Alternate route is contiguous
with existing all-season public highway rights-of-way for approximately 0.7 km or 30.4%, of its total
corridor length. The Nass Bay Tunnel Alternate route is not contiguous with any existing rights-of-way.
If the Access Management Plan Framework (Appendix 3-A) does not completely prevent access to the
pipeline right-of-way during operations, increased access has the potential to alter fish and fish habitat.
Increased off-road vehicle access (i.e., watercourse fordings), due to pipeline development, could result
in disturbances of instream habitat during the operations phase of the proposed Project. Trees and
shrubs will be planted and allowed to re-establish as part of the revegetation program at water crossings
which will prevent increased access. With the application of measures outlined in the Access
Management Plan Framework (Appendix 3-A), the potential residual effect of increased access
opportunities on instream habitat will be reduced to a low level of magnitude and reversible in the short to
long-term (Table 12-8). Application of appropriate mitigation and offsetting measures will reduce the
potential residual effect and contribute to addressing the relevant Aboriginal concerns (e.g., effects of
proposed Project construction activities on instream habitat and spawning areas, potential erosion and
sedimentation from construction activities, and changes to water quality affecting the overall health of
fish) (Appendix 2-K).
The potential residual effect of disturbance to instream habitat due to a potential increase in access
during operations is reversible in the short to medium-term, since any sediments that result in deposition
on instream habitat are expected to be flushed from the system during the first annual freshet event
following disturbance. The potential residual effect is also considered to be well within environmental and
regulatory standards, and therefore of low magnitude, based on successful implementation of mitigation
measures. The likelihood of alteration of instream habitat occurring is low since restricted access to the
right-of-way will limit new opportunities for recreational and off-road vehicle use. Consequently, the
potential residual effect of disturbance to instream habitat due to a potential increase in access during
operations is considered not significant.
Increased Potential for Fish Mortality or Injury Due to an Increase in Access During Operations
The Application Corridor may traverse the Nisga’a Lands via either the Nasoga route or the Kitsault
Alternate route. Within Nisga’a Lands, the Kitsault Alternate route is not contiguous with any existing
linear rights-of-way. Conversely, the Nasoga route is contiguous with existing power lines and all-season
public highway rights-of-way for approximately 24.7 km or 25.6%, of the total corridor length. Several
alternate routes are proposed along the Nasoga route in the Lower Nass River sub-basin and include the
following: the Gitlaxt’aamiks Alternate route (KPN 662.9 to KPN 664.8); the Nisga’a Highway Alternate
route (KPN 681.4 to KPN 684.7); the Ksi Mat’in Alternate route (KPN 696.7 to KPN 698.5); and the Nass
Bay Tunnel Alternate route (KPN 727.1 to KPN 734.4). The Gitlaxt’aamiks Alternate route is contiguous
with existing power lines right-of-way for approximately 1.05 km or 36.7%, of its total corridor length. The
Nisga’a Highway Alternate route is contiguous with existing all-season public highway rights-of-way for
approximately 2.5 km or 77.3%, of its total corridor length. The Ksi Mat’in Alternate route is contiguous
with existing all-season public highway rights-of-way for approximately 0.7 km or 30.4%, of its total
corridor length. The Nass Bay Tunnel Alternate route is not contiguous with any existing rights-of-way.
Page 12-60
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Increased off-road vehicle access (i.e., watercourse fordings), and legal and illegal harvest of fish due to
pipeline development and operations, could potentially lead to an increase in fish mortality or injury.
Increased potential for fish mortality or injury may also occur if the pipeline right-of-way increases off-road
vehicle fordings through streams, resulting in increased suspended sediment, which could directly affect
eggs, embryos or juveniles within the watercourse.
Increased access may contribute to angler overharvest, which has been reported as one of the primary
sources of fisheries declines in western Canada (Post and Johnston 2002). Top level predators which
occur in the Nass Wildlife Area such as salmon, trout and char species may be particularly vulnerable.
Restrictive harvest regulations are implemented in BC to protect species and minimize the potential for
overharvest by anglers (BC MFLNRO 2013b). In addition to effects on fish and fish habitat during the
operations phase, pipeline construction staff will be prohibited from angling within the Fish and Fish
Habitat LSA while on, or traveling to and from, the construction site. Nonetheless, some construction
personnel may fish during time off. Application of appropriate mitigation and offsetting measures will
(e.g., increased access to watercourses and isolated areas via construction access roads leading to
overfishing and damage of riparian areas) (Appendix 2-K).
Trees and shrubs will be planted, where warranted, as part of the revegetation program at water
crossings which will discourage increased access. The potential residual effect of increased fish mortality
or injury due to a potential increase in access during operations is considered reversible in the short-term,
since loss of one or more individuals is reflected at population scale for at least 1 year or until those
individuals can be replaced. With the application of the mitigation measures outlined in the Access
Management Plan Framework (Appendix 3-A), the potential residual effect of increased potential for fish
mortality or injury due to increased access opportunities is considered to be well within environmental and
regulatory standards, and therefore of low magnitude. The likelihood of increased fish mortality or injury
due to an increase in access during operations occurring is low, since appropriate mitigation measures
will be implemented to limit new opportunities for recreational and off-road vehicle use, and prevent fish
injury and/or mortality. Consequently, the potential residual effect of increased fish mortality or injury due
to a potential increase in access during operations is considered not significant.
Temporary Blockage of Fish Movements During Construction of Isolated Watercourse
Crossings
Due to construction activities during construction and decommissioning phases, localized blockage of fish
movements may occur during instream construction and may affect the ability of fish to migrate upstream
or downstream of crossings. The mitigation measures outlined in Table 12-7 and the EMP (Appendix 3-A)
will reduce the potential for blockage of fish movements by instream construction and temporary or
permanent vehicle access. The potential residual effect of the construction on blockage of fish
movements is considered to be reversible in the immediate to short-term and well within the
environmental and/or regulatory standards and, consequently, of low magnitude (Table 12-8). Application
of appropriate mitigation as well as any offsetting measures under the Fisheries Act will reduce the
potential residual effect and contribute to addressing the relevant Aboriginal concerns (e.g., effects of the
proposed Project on fish) (Appendix 2-K).
The potential residual effect of temporary blockage of fish movements during construction of isolated
watercourse crossings is considered reversible in the immediate to short-term, since any blockage due to
watercourse construction would be removed upon the completion of construction of a given watercourse
crossing. Construction activities are expected to meet the fish passage guidelines (DFO 2007) and,
therefore, the potential residual effect is expected to be of low magnitude based on the proposed
mitigation which will reduce the potential effect to a level well within environmental and/or regulatory
standards. The likelihood of temporary blockage of fish movements during construction of isolated
watercourse crossings is high since the Application Corridor crosses watercourses for which an isolated
crossing is recommended if the water is present during crossing construction. Consequently, the potential
residual effect of temporary blockage of fish movements during construction of isolated watercourse
crossings is considered not significant.
Page 12-61
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Fish Species of Conservation Concern May be Affected by an Increase in Suspended Sediment
Concentration, Habitat Alteration within the Zone of Influence and Increased Potential for
Mortality or Injury
Several fish species of conservation concern occur in the Nass Wildlife Area and within specific
watercourses crossed by the Application Corridor. COSEWIC and provincially-listed species within the
Nass Wildlife Area include coastal cutthroat trout, bull trout and oolichan (i.e., eulachon). Details about life
history, habitat and distribution of fish species of conservation concern within the Nass Wildlife Area and
Fish and Fish Habitat RSA are provided in Appendix 2-K.
Vehicle and pipeline crossing methods have been selected to reduce the potential Project-specific effects
during construction, operations and decommissioning phases in consideration of the presence and use by
fish species of conservation concern. The proposed Project crossing methods for watercourses are
trenchless, isolated (i.e., if water is present) or open-cut (i.e., if dry or frozen to bottom) crossings
(Appendix 2-K). Application of appropriate mitigation and offsetting measures will reduce the potential
residual effect and contribute to addressing the relevant Aboriginal concerns (e.g., effects of the proposed
Project construction activities on fish, fish habitat, riparian habitat and spawning areas; potential erosion
and sedimentation from construction activities; increased access to watercourses and isolated areas via
construction access roads, leading to overfishing and damage of riparian areas; and protection of bull
trout and other species sensitive to disruption) (Appendix 2-K).
The potential residual effect of an increase in suspended sediment concentration, habitat alteration within
the ZOI and increased potential for mortality or injury possibly affecting fish species of conservation
concern is considered reversible in the short-term, since loss of one or more individuals is reflected at a
population scale for at least one year, or until those individuals or their genetic diversity are replaced
during the following spawning season. The potential residual effect is also considered to be of low to
medium magnitude since instream activities will be conducted in accordance with the Self-Assessment
Process and Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat, provincial guidelines, and as well
as applicable federal and provincial approvals. The likelihood is considered low, since appropriate
construction timing, proposed crossing methods and mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent
fish injury and/or mortality. Consequently, the potential residual effect is considered not significant.
Further information on the assessment using context, duration, frequency, reversibility, magnitude,
probability and confidence for fish and fish habitat-related residual environmental effects is provided in
Section 4.5. The reader should refer to the sections of the Application cross-referenced in Table 12-7 for
an assessment of potential adverse residual effects on fish and fish habitat.
For the purposes of this analysis, the assessment undertaken in relation to relevant VCs in Section 4.5
and related mitigation measures are considered applicable to the relevant Nisga’a 8(e) interests.
Vegetation
Alteration of Pine Mushroom Habitat through Direct Effects on the Footprint and through Indirect
Effects Adjacent to the Project Footprint
Pine mushrooms have been identified as an important resource by Nisga’a Nation and included as one of
the management objectives by the Land Use Plan for Nisga’a Lands (NLG 2002). TEK studies indicate
that pine mushrooms are found at the base of pine trees, have a creamy white colour and are picked for
sale. Mushrooms are plentiful in areas that have been burned the year before, as well as in swampy
areas (TERA 2014).
Pine mushrooms are found in very specific habitats that have been defined as mature (i.e., predominantly
80 to 160 years old) mixed stands of lodgepole pine, western hemlock or Douglas-fir below 800 m
elevation in the following Site Series: ICMmc1/01b, ICHmc2/01b and CWHws2/03 (Berch and
Wiensczyk 2001, Gamiet et al. 1998). Research indicates that prime pine mushroom forests have an
open canopy where light penetrates to the forest floor (Gamiet et al. 1998). Soils tend to be well or rapidly
drained, subxeric to submesic, coarse-textured (sand to loamy-sand), with poor to medium soil nutrient
regimes (Berch and Wiensczyk 2001).
Page 12-62
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Pine mushrooms are mycorrhizal fungi (BC Forest Service 1997). These fungi live in symbiosis with the
roots of coniferous trees, extending into the soil surrounding the trees. Mushrooms are the fruiting stage
of mycorrhizal fungi and picking a mushroom should not be harmful to mycorrhizae if the forest floor is
undisturbed (BC Forest Service 1997).
Ectomycorrhizal richness was studied in forest gaps and the maximum ectomycorrhizal richness within
gaps extended 7 m or less from the forest edge for both lodgepole pine and western hemlock (Durall et
al. 1999). This suggests that the distance that the roots of mature forest trees extend into a gap is 7 m or
less. It has also been concluded that the major impact of clearcut logging on ectomycorrhizal fungi has
been to change the species composition of the ectomycorrhizal fungal community, rather than reduce the
percentage of roots colonized (Jones et al. 2003). The shift in fungal species composition has
implications for seedling establishment and growth (Jones et al. 2003).
Durall and Jones (1995 in Gamiet et al. [1998]) studied the effects of gap size from clearcut logging on a
fungal community and found that as gap areas increased, the species richness of mycorrhizal
mushrooms in mature stands decreased (BC Forest Service 1997). At gap sizes greater than
2
approximately 900 m , a gap in the below ground ectomycorrhizal hyphal network occurs (Durall et
al. 1999). Without the ectomycorrhizal hyphae, there will be no pine mushroom growth.
Potential pine mushroom habitat areas have been determined through consultation, desktop review and
TEM mapping. Within the Nass Wildlife Area, approximately 43.36 ha and 11.09 ha of potential pine
mushroom habitat is encountered by the footprints of the combined Cypress to Cranberry / Kitsault route
and the combined Cypress to Cranberry / Nasoga route, respectively (i.e., 20.7% of the total 210 ha of
the potential mushroom habitat encountered by the footprint of the combined Cypress to
Cranberry/Kitsault route and 6.8% of the total 163 ha of potential pine mushroom habitat encountered by
the footprint of the combined Cypress to Cranberry/Nasoga route).
Site-specific mitigation for pine mushroom habitat is focused on avoidance to the extent practical. Where
avoidance is not practical, narrow the work area to retain patches of natural species including trees
(young, mature and/or old), shrubs, herbs and groundcover species, depending upon the type and
distribution found in the vegetation community. Compaction will be limited and grubbing will be reduced to
allow the root system to remain where practical. If timing is appropriate, allow harvesting of pine
mushrooms prior to construction.
Adjacent to the Project Footprint, changes to the forest edge as a result of clearing for pipeline
construction may include changes in light or hydrology. Prime pine mushroom habitat is an open forest
with well to rapidly drained soils. Therefore, changes in light may not have as dramatic an effect as
changes in hydrology. Basidiospores (the initial stage of fungal growth of pine mushrooms) are sensitive
to low moisture conditions (Gamiet et al. 1998). Monitoring following completion of construction will
identify any locations where remedial work on surface drainage patterns or revegetation is to be
conducted. Consequently, the direct and indirect effects of the proposed Project on pine mushroom
habitat will have low to medium magnitude, will be reversible in the long-term and are considered not
significant.
Alteration of Redcedar and Yellow-Cedar-Dominated Habitat if Mitigative Measures do not
Completely Protect a Site through Direct Effects on the Footprint, and through Indirect Effects
Adjacent to the Project Footprint
An estimated 60.30 ha of potential western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated communities are
traversed by the footprint of the combined Cypress to Cranberry / Kitsault route within the Nass Wildlife
Area (i.e., 36.8% of the total 164 ha of potential western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated
communities traversed by the footprint of the combined Cypress to Cranberry/Kitsault route). An
estimated 281.24 ha of potential western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated communities are
traversed by the footprint of the combined Cypress to Cranberry / Nasoga route within the Nass Wildlife
Area (87.9% of the total 320 ha of potential western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated communities
traversed by the footprint of the combined Cypress to Cranberry/Nasoga Route). Areas with the potential
to support potential western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated communities have been
conservatively estimated as the estimate includes all of the site series identified with the potential to
support western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated communities.
Page 12-63
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Yellow-cedar and western redcedar have important cultural values and are used for making traditional
clothing, carvings, masks, bentboxes, totem poles, longhouses and canoes. Cedar bark can be woven to
create baskets, hats, diapers and headbands for traditional dancing costumes. Cedar branches are used
in regalia and to make archways at gatherings (TERA 2014). Pre-construction surveys will confirm
locations of the western redcedar and yellow-cedar habitat on the Project Footprint.
The most effective mitigation for western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated communities is avoidance
to the extent practical (including facilities, stockpile sites, staging areas, work camps, ancillary facilities
and access roads). TWS will be limited in western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated communities.
Site-specific mitigation options for western redcedar and yellow-cedar-dominated communities may
include narrowing down the area of disturbance. Where ecologically suitable following construction,
consideration will be given to planting western redcedar and yellow-cedar on TWS and extra TWS.
Sources of western redcedar and yellow-cedar will be determined through consultation.
Some of the habitat of western redcedar and yellow-cedar may be adjacent to the right-of-way and may
be indirectly affected by changes in light levels or hydrology. With the implementation of industry-standard
mitigation, these effects are expected to be minor (i.e., low magnitude), until trench settlement is
complete and the seeded vegetation has grown or natural regeneration taken place. Nevertheless, light
levels may take considerable time to reach background levels. Western redcedar is shade tolerant and
approaches its maximum radial and height growth rates at about 30% full sun (Drever and
Lertzman 2001). Monitoring following construction will identify any locations where remedial work on
surface drainage patterns or revegetation is to be conducted on the Project Footprint. Consequently,
these residual effects are reversible in the medium to long-term, are of low magnitude and are considered
not significant.
probability and confidence for vegetation-related residual environmental effects is provided in Section 4.6.
The reader should refer to the sections of the Application cross-referenced in Table 12-7 for a complete
assessment of potential adverse residual effects on vegetation.
and related mitigation measures are considered applicable to the relevant Nisga’a 8(e) interests.
Wildlife
Pipeline and facility construction, operation and decommissioning activities have the potential to directly
and indirectly affect wildlife and wildlife habitat through alteration of vegetation, terrain and drainage, and
sensory disturbance (e.g., ambient noise and human activity) causing changes in wildlife habitat,
movement and mortality risk. These effects mechanisms or “pathways” define the potential adverse
effects identified for the proposed Project:
•
change in habitat;
•
change in movement; and
•
change in mortality risk.
Detailed information on these three effects pathways for all of the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat KIs,
including proposed mitigation, is provided in Section 4.8. Information relating to potential residual effects
on grizzly bear, moose, mountain goat and migratory birds in the NWA is summarized below.
For the purposes of the wildlife and wildlife habitat assessment in Section 4.8, the Application Corridor
and wildlife study areas have been divided into the following four segments: Lower Peace; Upper Peace;
Stuart and Skeena; and Nass and North Coast (Figure 4.8-5 in Section 4.8). The NWA corresponds to the
Nass and North Coast segment. Additional segments were delineated specific to the assessment of
grizzly bear, in order to capture ecological differences in habitat availability and use between the North
Coast, Central Interior and Northeast regions of the province (Figure 4.8-2 in Section 4.8). The NWA
corresponds to the Coastal region.
Page 12-64
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Technical boundaries refer to potential limitations to the proponent’s ability to predict the effects of the
proposed Project. The effect pathways of interaction between pipeline construction and operation on
wildlife are generally known and have predictable effects. Where there are limitations to predictions, these
are discussed within the significance evaluation for residual effects under the level of confidence criterion
and include limitations in available baseline data, lack of research on cause-effect relationships, absence
of relevant, accepted and/or established biological thresholds by which to quantitatively measure Project
effects, and limitations of available spatial data for existing and foreseeable developments.
In addition, the assessment of wildlife and wildlife habitat has a technical boundary associated with the
access roads that will be developed to support the construction and operations of the proposed Project.
Spatial information for permanent access roads associated with the proposed compressor stations is
available and was included in the proposed Project Footprint for quantitative analyses. However, the
locations of temporary and permanent roads required to access the proposed pipeline right-of-way for
construction and operations have not yet been determined. Therefore, these access roads are considered
qualitatively in the assessment of wildlife KIs, under the assumption that temporary and permanent
access (for operational access to the right-of-way) will primarily use existing access requiring minimal
upgrading. It is acknowledged that substantial upgrades of existing access may be required in some
locations, and development of new access may be required to facilitate construction. For the assessment
of potential residual effects, this technical boundary primarily affects quantitative analyses of changes in
habitat suitability.
Grizzly Bear
The proposed project will affect grizzly bear habitat, movement and mortality risk within the NWA.
Clearing of the Project Footprint will reduce the availability of cover and temporarily reduce forage
availability for grizzly bear. However, grizzly bears use pipeline rights-of-way for foraging and for travel
(McKay et al. 2013). Noise and traffic during construction of the proposed Project may reduce habitat
effectiveness for grizzly bears however, the reduction in habitat effectiveness is expected to be limited to
the construction period (i.e., short-term). Linear corridors such as pipeline rights-of-way have the potential
to increase mortality rates through hunting pressures by creating new access.
Habitat modelling results for grizzly bear spring habitat within the Wildlife LSA are presented in Table 4.812 and Figure 4.8-7 of Section 4.8. The NWA overlaps with the Coastal grizzly bear region, and the
Cranberry, Stewart and Khutzeymateen GBPUs. The predicted change in effective spring grizzly bear
habitat in the NWA is relatively small (i.e., approximately 5% or less of modeled habitat currently available
in the Wildlife LSA).
The Application Corridor traverses the proposed Grizzly Bear Wildlife Habitat Area WHA (6-282) for
approximately 0.5 km along the Kitsault route in the NWA. The Application Corridor crosses Grizzly Bear
Class 1 Habitat identified by the Central and North Coast Order under the Lands Act for less than 0.1 km
along the Kitsault route and for approximately 0.1 km along the Nasoga route in the NWA. The
Application Corridor also crosses Grizzly Bear Class 2 Habitat identified under the Central and North
Coast Order for approximately 200 m along the Kitsault route. General Wildlife Measures, objectives,
conditions and recommendations associated with these areas, in addition to information collected through
consultation and the Working Group process, have been incorporated into the development of mitigation
and the characterization of magnitude for residual effects on grizzly bear. Mitigation is provided in Section
4.8.6 and includes scheduling clearing and construction activities within identified high value grizzly bear
habitat (e.g., proposed WHAs and Class 1 and 2 grizzly bear habitats) outside of periods of high seasonal
use (e.g., key foraging habitat in the spring and salmon bearing watercourses in the late-summer and
fall), where practical.
Noise and traffic during construction of the proposed Project may reduce habitat effectiveness for grizzly
bears. Reduced habitat effectiveness for grizzly bear associated with sensory disturbance from
construction activities or site-specific maintenance during operations is reversible in the short-term, once
activities are complete. The mitigation listed in Section 4.8.6 will reduce the potential indirect effects of the
proposed Project on grizzly bear habitat. Sensory disturbance associated noise and light at the proposed
compressor and meter stations will occur continuously over the operations phase, and is reversible
following decommissioning.
Page 12-65
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Changes in grizzly bear movement patterns may occur as a result of the proposed Project. For example,
rights-of-way may provide a travel route for predators such as grizzly bears (McKay et al. 2013). McKay et
al. (2013) found that collared grizzly bears tend to move faster on pipeline rights-of-way. It is unlikely that
the proposed pipeline right-of-way would create a barrier to grizzly bear movement.
Mitigation to reduce potential adverse effects from the proposed Project on mammal movement during
construction and operations is described in Section 4.8.6. Limiting the length of open trench, maintaining
breaks in soil, slash, snow and pipe, and aligning breaks with wildlife trails, where feasible, will limit
barriers to grizzly bear movement during construction.
The proposed Project may increase grizzly bear mortality risk. Grizzly bear mortality is primarily related to
direct human causes (Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team 2008, Austin and Wrenshall 2004,
COSEWIC 2012, Hamilton et al. 2004, Kansas 2002, McLellan 1990). Bear-human conflicts can result in
mortality as bears may be destroyed (“animal control”) or relocated. Hunting and poaching, and collisions
with vehicle/rail traffic are also key factors in grizzly bear mortality (BC MOE 2012b COSEWIC 2012).
Hunting and trapping pressures can be elevated in areas where linear corridors facilitate motorized
access.
Mitigation to limit access will reduce the proposed Project’s residual effect on grizzly bear mortality risk.
New access for the proposed Project will be managed by using existing access wherever feasible, and
temporary access will be decommissioned and reclaimed following construction. An Access Management
Plan will be developed for the proposed Project that will identify access to/from the pipeline right-of-way,
permanent and temporary roads, and mitigation measures specific to access. Between construction
periods for the initial pipeline and the second pipeline, temporary roads will be reviewed and the
appropriate level of deactivation implemented based on the results of consultation and their location.
Upon completion of the Project construction phase, all temporary roads will be deactivated.
Moose
The proposed project will affect moose habitat, movement and mortality risk within the NWA. Clearing of
the Project Footprint will reduce the availability of cover and temporarily reduce forage for moose.
However, the Project Footprint will create increased forage availability for moose once vegetation
communities regenerate to early seral vegetation after reclamation (e.g., grasses/shrubs). Early seral
forage may attract moose to the right-of-way and, therefore, alter their normal movement patterns. Linear
corridors such as pipeline rights-of-way have the potential to increase mortality rates through hunting
pressures by creating new access.
Habitat modelling results for moose winter feeding and moose winter security/thermal habitat within the
Wildlife LSA are presented in Figure 4.8-6 of Section 4.8. The Nass and North Coast wildlife segment
corresponds to the NWA. The predicted change in effective moose winter feeding and moose winter
security/thermal habitat in the NWA (i.e., Nass and North Coast segment) is relatively small for both
proposed routes (i.e., less than 3% of modeled habitat currently available in the Wildlife LSA).
The proposed Project traverses two proposed UWR for moose in the NWA: u-6-009 (primary winter range
for 1.3 km and secondary winter range for approximately 3.3 km along the Nasoga route); and u-6-018
(for approximately 2.0 km along the Kitsault route). Draft General Wildlife Measures for the proposed u-6009 are not available at this time. Draft General Wildlife Measures for the proposed UWR u-6-018 focus
on retaining thermal and security cover for moose and minimizing roads within 500 m of the UWR (BC
MOE 2009b) (Table 4.8-3 of Section 4.8). Mitigation is provided in Section 4.8.6 and includes schedule
clearing and construction activities within the UWRs to avoid the period of November 1 to May 1, if
possible (BC MOE 2009b).
Sensory disturbance of moose can result in displacement to less suitable habitats. Although sensitive to
human disturbance, moose will habituate to non-threatening and repetitive activities (Wiacek et al. 2002).
The mitigation listed in Section 4.8.6 will reduce the potential indirect effects of the proposed Project on
moose habitat. Sensory disturbance associated noise and light at the proposed compressor and meter
stations will occur continuously over the operations phase, and is reversible following decommissioning.
Linear features such as secondary roads and seismic lines are not considered an impediment to moose
movement (Collister et al. 2003). Reduced use or avoidance of linear features such as roads, trails and
Page 12-66
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
seismic lines by moose has been documented in some regions (Collister et al. 2003, Ferguson and Keith
1985, Rolley and Keith 1980). However, moose have been shown to exhibit heavy use of forestry roads
and cutblocks during winter in other regions, presumably due to better forage availability and lower wolf
densities (Kunkel and Pletscher 2000, Serrouya and D’Eon 2002).
Mitigation to reduce potential adverse effects from the proposed Project on mammal movement during
construction and operations is described in Section 4.8.6. Limiting the length of open trench, maintaining
breaks in soil, slash, snow and pipe, and aligning breaks with wildlife trails, where feasible, will limit
barriers to moose movement during construction.
The proposed Project may increase moose mortality risk by increasing access for hunters and predators.
Hunter harvest (legal and illegal), predation (i.e., wolves and bears) and roadkill are known causes of
moose mortality in the NWA (NLG 2013). Hunting and trapping pressures can be elevated in areas where
linear corridors facilitate motorized access. The proposed Project may also cause increased wolf
predation on ungulates (e.g., moose, deer), since both prey (ungulates) and predators (wolves) will likely
be attracted to revegetating linear corridors. Predation has been identified as a likely factor in the recent
moose population declines in the NWA (NLG 2013).
Mitigation to limit access will reduce the proposed Project’s residual effect on moose mortality risk. New
access for the proposed Project will be managed by using existing access wherever feasible, and
temporary access will be decommissioned and reclaimed following construction. An Access Management
Plan will be developed for the proposed Project that will identify access to/from the pipeline right-of-way,
permanent and temporary roads, and mitigation measures specific to access. Between construction
periods for the initial pipeline and the second pipeline, temporary roads will be reviewed and the
appropriate level of deactivation implemented based on the results of consultation and their location.
Upon completion of the Project construction phase, all temporary roads will be deactivated.
Regarding Nass moose, WCGT is committed to further discussions with the Nisga’a during the
Application review to consider additional potential mitigation measures specific to the Nass area,
appropriate. This could potentially include contribution to and/or participation in Nass moose programs or
studies referenced in conditions 20 and 21 of the Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Kitsault
Mine project.
Mountain Goat
There is one UWR (u-6-010) for Mountain Goat along the proposed route in the NWA. However, the
proposed tunnel along the Nasoga route will avoid UWR u-6-010, as well as the associated 500 m buffer.
The General Wildlife Measures for UWR u-6-010 are intended to maintain forest and vegetation cover
and reduce displacement and sensory disturbance to mountain goat. These measures, in addition to
regulatory guidelines such as the Environmental Protection and Management Guide (BC OGC 2013) and
the Management Plan for the Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) in British Columbia (MGMT 2010)
were considered in the development of mitigation and characterization of the magnitude of residual
effects for mountain goat.
Mountain goats are highly sensitive to human disturbance. Mechanical disturbances, such as those from
helicopter traffic and ATV use, evoke flight responses by mountain goats and may negatively affect their
energy budgets (Côté 2010). A study by St-Louis et al. (2013) found that mountain goat response was
stronger when ATVs were approaching directly rather than when ATVs were running parallel or at an
angle to the goats, suggesting that mountain goats perceive approaching ATVs as a threat. Mountain
goats have a high probability of being moderately or strongly disturbed when they are approached within
500 m by a helicopter (Côté 1996, Côté et al. 2013), and habituate only slightly to helicopter traffic over
time (Côté et al. 2013). Mitigation is provided in Section 4.8.6 and includes avoiding overflights and
maintaining a 2,000 m horizontal distance and 400 m vertical distance from mountain goat winter range.
Migratory Birds
Migratory birds will be affected by the proposed Project, primarily through changes to habitat as a result
of direct habitat loss, fragmentation, edge effects and sensory disturbance. Construction of the proposed
Project will require vegetation clearing, increase the existing corridor width where existing rights-of-way
are paralleled, and remove potential nesting and perch habitat. Although much of the Project Footprint will
Page 12-67
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
be reclaimed following construction and edges will be allowed to regenerate to natural vegetation
communities, portions of the right-of-way will require ongoing clearing during operations to meet safety
and regulatory requirements. Clearing activities will result in the long-term conversion of forest habitat to
earlier seral stages (herbaceous and shrub stages). Some disturbed herbaceous, shrubby and wetland
habitats will likely regenerate following reclamation in the medium-term. Reductions in habitat
effectiveness associated with sensory disturbance (noise, light) at the proposed compressor and meter
stations will occur continuously over the operations phase of the proposed Project.
Habitat modelling results for migratory bird KIs that occur in the NWA (i.e., old forest birds; early seral
forest birds; grassland/shrubland birds; riparian and water birds; common nighthawk; olive-sided
flycatcher; and marbled murrelet) are presented in Figures 4.8-8 and 4.8-9 of Section 4.8. The Nass and
North Coast wildlife segment corresponds to the NWA. The results of habitat models indicate that for
most bird KIs, the proposed Project will reduce effective nesting habitat in the NWA. Where clearing of
forested vegetation creates open habitats for birds that prefer these habitat types (i.e., Common
Nighthawk, Grassland/Shrubland Birds), construction of the proposed Project will initially create additional
habitat. The proportionate change in habitat for species with a relatively small area of effective habitat
under existing conditions (e.g., Common Nighthawk, Marbled Murrelet) is much higher than for those KIs
where habitat is more readily available within the Wildlife LSA (e.g., Mature/Old Forest Birds, Olive-sided
Flycatcher).
Migratory birds may also experience adverse effects from the proposed Project related to changes in
movement. The proposed Project will entail new clearing, create new linear disturbance and increase the
width of existing linear disturbance features. The Project Footprint may act as a filter or barrier to bird
movement. Forest gaps have been shown to affect movements of forest birds (Bayne et al. 2005,
Desrochers and Hannon 1997, Fleming and Schmiegelow 2002). Wider corridor widths increase the
barrier effects on bird movements more than narrower corridors (Desrochers and Hannon 1997), and
parallel forest openings can cause a cumulative barrier effect at the landscape scale for some species
(Bélisle and St. Clair 2001). Desrochers and Hannon (1997) found that gaps less than 30 m in width had
little effect on bird movements, although wider gaps constrained movement for specific species. Residual
forest patches, or detours, may facilitate bird movements across gaps (Desrochers and Hannon 1997,
St. Clair et al. 1998). Changes in movement patterns may also occur as some species are attracted to
early seral vegetation. Species that prefer edges and habitat generalists are most likely to use disturbed
areas (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). With the proposed mitigation (e.g., reducing grubbing near watercourses,
wetlands, and other wet areas to facilitate the reclamation of deciduous tree and shrub communities,
avoiding vegetation control along the right-of-way edges during operation), forest openings resulting from
the proposed Project and other existing disturbances are expected to result in filters, but not complete
barriers, to movement of some bird species.
Increased bird mortality risk associated with the proposed Project is primarily related to the disturbance of
nests during construction. Birds are particularly vulnerable during the nesting stage. Bird mortality during
construction may occur if nests are encountered during vegetation clearing. Construction activities also
have the potential to increase bird mortality risk by disrupting bird nesting and breeding behaviour to an
extent that causes nest failure or abandonment of the breeding area. Most bird species are sensitive to
human disturbance in proximity to nest sites and often have physiological or behavioural responses
(Antoniuk and Ainsle 2003) that may result in nest desertion, reduced parental care of young, decreased
feeding efficiency and increased dispersal distances of young (Hill et al. 1997, Jalkotzy et al. 1997,
Richardson and Miller 1997). ‘Flushing’ is a common short-term response of birds to disturbance, where
birds temporarily leaving the nest or perch site in response to unfamiliar noises, pedestrian approach or
traffic (e.g., vehicle, boat, aircraft, all-terrain vehicle [ATV]) (Antoniuk and Ainsle 2003).
Increased risk of nest predation resulting from edges in forested landscapes has been identified as a
potential issue for breeding birds, particularly ground nesters (Flaspohler et al. 2001). Numerous studies
in forested landscapes have found no evidence of increased nest predation due to either forestry (Bayne
and Hobson 1997, Cotterill and Hannon 1999, Ibarzabal and Desrochers 2001, Schmiegelow and
Mönkkönen 2002) or roads (Ortega and Capen 1999). However, a recent study by Malt and Lank (2009)
found that the nest disturbance probability for marbled murrelet was 2.5 times higher for nests within 50 m
of the edge of recent clear-cuts (5 to11 years old) relative to interior sites (i.e., ≥ 150 m from the edge of
the clear-cut). This same study on marbled murrelet also found that nests within 50 m of regenerating
stands (17-39 years old) had a lower disturbance probability than the interior sites, possibly due to a
Page 12-68
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
relative lack of resources (e.g., berries and insects) that could attract predators in early seral regenerating
clear-cuts.
The proposed mitigation (e.g., schedule clearing and construction activities outside the migratory bird
nesting period of May 1 to July 31 (Wilson pers. comm.) where feasible, otherwise conduct migratory bird
nest sweeps as described in Section 4.8.6), as well as reducing the Project Footprint and fragmentation
to the extent feasible, is expected to reduce the residual effects of the proposed Project on mortality risk
for migratory birds in the Wildlife LSA.
probability and confidence for wildlife-related residual environmental effects is provided in Section 4.8.
The reader should refer to the sections of the Application cross-referenced in Table 12-7 for a complete
assessment of potential adverse residual effects on wildlife.
and related mitigation measures are considered applicable to the relevant Nisga’a 8(e) interests except
where and to the extent noted below.
With respect to Nass moose, the Nisga’a have indicated a particular concern which may not be present
throughout the entire proposed Project area. WCGT is committed to further discussions with the Nisga’a
during the Application review to consider additional potential mitigation measures specific to the Nass
area, if and as appropriate. This could potentially include contribution to and/or participation in Nass
moose programs or studies referenced in conditions 20 and 21 of the Environmental Assessment
Certificate for the Kitsault Mine project.
Marine Environment
probability and confidence for marine environment-related residual environmental effects is provided in
Section 4.4. The reader should refer to the sections of the Application cross-referenced in Table 12-7 for
a complete assessment of potential adverse residual effects on the marine environment.
and related mitigation measures are considered applicable to the relevant Nisga’a 8(e) interests
12.2.3
An assessment of cumulative effects for the environmental effects assessment (pursuant to Paragraph
8(e), Chapter 10 of the Nisga’a Final Agreement) is not required under the AIR.
12.3
Economic, Social and Cultural Effects Assessment: Pursuant to the Nisga’a
Final Agreement, Chapter 10, Section 8(f)
Chapter 10, Section 8(f) of the NFA sets out the requirement to
“…assess the effects of the (P)roject on the existing and future economic, social and cultural
well-being of Nisga’a citizens who may be affected by the (P)roject” (NLG et al. 2000).
The following subsections provide an overview of existing economic, social and cultural conditions as well
as potential effects of the proposed Project on Nisga’a citizens. The NLG Economic Social and Cultural
Impact Assessment Guidelines as well as an EA approach agreement between WCGT and Nisga’a
Nation were considered and have informed the information gathering and assessment discussed in this
section (refer to Section 12.2.3).
A draft of the 8(f) assessment was circulated to the NLG for review and comment prior to submission of
the Application, in accordance with the AIR.
Table 12-9 provides information on Nisga’a interests relating to Chapter 10, Section 8(f) and the potential
for interaction with the proposed Project. Other sections of the EA address certain effects which also have
Page 12-69
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
been identified as pertaining to Nisga’a interests. The sections of the EA which are cross-referenced in
this subsection are: Potential Adverse Economic Effects Assessment (Section 5.0); Potential Social
Effects Assessment (Section 6.0); Potential Health Effects Assessment (Section 8.0); and Potential
Accidents and Malfunctions (Section 9.0).
TABLE 12-9
NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT CHAPTER 10 SECTION 8(f) CONCORDANCE TABLE
Nisga'a Interest Identified in the Nisga'a Final Agreement - Chapter 10 Section 8(f)
Economic
• Nisga’a Citizens’ Employment and Income
• Nisga’a Citizens’ Business Activities
• Natural Resource Activities and Related Earnings or Values
• Nisga’a Government Expenditures
• Future Nisga’a Citizen’s Economic Opportunities and Economic Development
Social
• Migration and Population Effects in Nisga’a Nation Communities
• Community Infrastructure and Services in Nisga’a Nation Communities
• Family and Community Well-being
• Occupational and Non-Occupational Health Risks
• Occupational and Non-Occupational Accident Risks
Cultural
• Effects of Environmental Impacts on the Cultural Activities and Practices of Nisga’a Citizens
• Effects of Changing Work Patterns and Income on Nisga’a Cultural Activities and Practices
• Effects on Nisga’a Language
12.3.1
Baseline Data Collection and Analysis
12.3.1.1
Desktop and Literature Review
Project Interaction
Environmental
Assessment Sections
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sections 5.0 and 12.3.1.3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Through discussions with Nisga’a Nation representatives, sources of baseline information determined to
be included for review were as follows:
•
work completed by consultants on behalf of Nisga’a Nation;
•
similar regulatory applications and project effect assessments, including the Kitsault
Mine Project, KSM Mining Project, Northwest Transmission Line Project and
Greenville-Kincolith Road Project;
•
the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development database: Connectivity for Aboriginal
and Northern Communities in Canada;
•
provincial databases;
•
relevant legislation, regulations and best management practices; and
•
consultation with Nisga’a Nation to obtain insight into local and regional issues.
Information on the review of economic, social (including health) and cultural conditions is provided in
Sections 5.0, 6.0, 8.0 and 9.0 of the Application. Refer to the following TDRs for more detailed information
on the relevant topics:
•
Social, Economic and Health Technical Data Report (Appendix 2-Q); and
•
Aesthetic Visual Technical Data Report (Appendix 2-R).
Page 12-70
Nisga’a Nation
12.3.1.2
April 2014
Boundaries
Spatial Boundaries
The spatial boundary that was used for the 8(f) assessment is the Nass Area.
Temporal Boundaries
Temporal boundaries for Section 8(f), Chapter 10 of the NFA assessment are consistent with the
temporal boundaries for VCs for fish (Section 4.5); vegetation (Section 4.6); wildlife (Section 4.8); and the
marine environment (Section 4.4).
Administrative Boundaries
The proposed Project traverses Nisga’a Lands and the NWA, or areas adjacent to Nisga’a Lands as
2
indicated in the NFA. Nisga’a Lands, as detailed in the NFA, consist of approximately 1,992 km of land
comprising the principal area of the Nisga’a territory. To align with the AIR in satisfying Chapter 10 of the
NFA, WCGT will report on Project effects on Nisga’a interests as well as measures to prevent or mitigate
adverse environmental effects on residents of Nisga’a Lands, Nisga’a Lands, or Nisga’a interests.
12.3.1.3
Economic Overview
Nisga’a Citizens’ Employment and Income
The following subsection provides information on Nisga’a labour force characteristics, including the
available labour supply, potential barriers to employment and unemployment rates. The labour force
requirements for the construction and operation of the proposed Project as well as Nisga’a Nation training
programs are also described below.
Nisga’a Labour Force Characteristics and Skills Inventory
National Household Survey (NHS) information for Nisga’a Nation was not available due to reasons of
data quality or confidentiality. The 2006 Statistics Canada census data reported on labour force activity
for the Nisga’a Villages of Gitlaxt’aamiks, Gitwinksihlkw and Gingolx (Table 12-10). A labour market
census conducted by the Skeena Native Development Society (SNDS) in 2006 provides information for
all four Nisga’a Villages (Table 12-11). Reported labour force characteristics differ markedly between the
two information sources. In 2006, the available labour force as reported by the Statistics Canada survey
ranged from 71.8% in Gingolx to 77.1% in Gitwinksihlkw. The unemployment rate was reported as being
lowest in Gitwinksihlkw (26.1%) and highest in Gitlaxt’aamiks (49.6%) (Table 12-10).
TABLE 12-10
NISGA’A NATION LABOUR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS (STATISTICS CANADA 2006)
Location
Labour Force (%)
Participation (%)
Employed
Unemployed
Unemployment Rate (%)
75.1
77.1
-71.8
66.1
74.2
-61.2
300
90
-80
105
30
-70
49.6
26.1
-46.7
Gitlaxt’aamiks
Gitwinksihlkw
Laxgalts’ap1
Gingolx
Source:
Statistics Canada 2007
Note:
1
No census information available.
Table 12-11 identifies Nisga’a Nation labour force activity in 2006 according to information from the SNDS
Labour Market Census. Laxgalts’ap reported the highest unemployment rate (73.3%) and Gitwinksihlkw
reported the lowest (40.9%) (SNDS 2006). Both the Statistics Canada and the SNDS estimates are lower
than the 80-85% unemployment rate reported by an NLG representative (Stewart pers. comm.).
Page 12-71
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-11
NISGA’A NATION LABOUR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS
(SKEENA NATIVE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY 2006)
Location
Labour Force (%)1
Gitlaxt’aamiks
Gitwinksihlkw
Laxgalts’ap2
Gingolx
Source:
47.1
45.5
51.6
47.3
Population 15 Years and Older
Employed
Unemployed
266
85
131
84
255
45
225
113
Unemployment Rate (%)1
56.9
40.9
73.3
59.8
SNDS 2006
According to a Social, Economic, Resource Use and Culture (SERC) survey conducted in 2011 for the
Kitsault Mine Project (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/56146/56146E.pdf), Nisga’a Nation
survey respondents rated their family/household situation as a large barrier to employment with the mine
(Rescan 2012). Other key barriers were identified as community/social commitments, cultural
activities/events and resource harvesting activities (Rescan 2012). The single largest limitation to mine
employment was identified as a lack of training or education, which also corresponds to the most
recommended action that could be taken by companies (i.e., to provide training or education)
(Rescan 2012).
A community representative attributed the high rates of unemployment for Nisga’a Nation members to:
•
lack of education;
•
sociological issues (e.g., poverty, substance abuse, effects of residential schools,
effects of colonialization);
•
housing shortages;
•
medical issues;
•
loss of culture and language;
•
effects of missionaries; and
•
limits of access to land (Stewart pers. comm.).
The occupational characteristics of Nisga’a Nation members for 2006 are available for the Nisga’a
Villages of Gitlaxt’aamiks, Gitwinksihlkw and Gingolx (Table 12-12). In general, the highest proportion of
people in the villages were employed in sales and services (from 21.7-23.8%), and in social sciences,
education, government services and religion (from 19-21.7%). Other occupational areas with relatively
higher employment included: business; finance and administration; management; and trade-related
occupations. Few positions were reported in art, culture, recreation and sport, and in processing,
manufacturing and utilities.
Page 12-72
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-12
NISGA’A NATION OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Source:
Note:
Natural and Applied
Sciences and Related
Occupations
Health
Social Sciences, Education,
Government Service and
Religion
Art, Culture, Recreation and
Sport
Sales and Services
Trades, Transport and
Equipment Operators and
Related Occupations
Occupations Unique to
Primary Industry
Occupations Unique to
Processing, Manufacturing
and Utilities
Gitlaxt’aamiks
Gitwinksihlkw
Laxgalts’ap1
Gingolx
Business, Finance and
Administration
Location
Management
Percentage of Total Population Aged 15 Years and Over
7.8
14.3
-13.0
14.3
9.5
-8.7
3.9
0.0
-8.7
0.0
0.0
-8.7
20.8
19.0
-21.7
2.6
0.0
-0.0
22.1
23.8
-21.7
15.6
9.5
-17.4
10.4
9.5
-13.0
2.6
0.0
-0.0
1
No census information available.
Table 12-13 provides information on education characteristics of Nisga’a Nation members. The amount of
post-secondary education attained by Nisga’a citizens aged 15 and over in 2006 was characterized as
follows:
•
apprenticeship, trades certificate or diploma: from 11.5-15.6%;
•
college or non-university certificate or diploma: from 9.4-13.1%; and
•
university degree, certificate or diploma above the bachelor level: from 4.1-12.5%
(Statistics Canada 2007).
TABLE 12-13
NISGA’A NATION EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Source:
Note:
High School
Certificate or
Degree
Apprenticeship or
Trades Certificate
or Diploma
College, CEGEP or
Other NonUniversity
Certificate or
Diploma
University
Certificate Below
the Bachelor Level
University
Certificate, Diploma
or Degree Above
the Bachelor Level
Location
Gitlaxt’aamiks
Gitwinksihlkw
Laxgalts’ap1
Gingolx
No Certificate,
Diploma or Degree
Percentage of Total Population Aged 15 Years and Over
610
160
-245.0
35.2
31.3
-40.8
26.2
28.1
-26.5
11.5
15.6
-14.3
13.1
9.4
-12.2
4.9
6.3
-4.1
1
No NHS information available. Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District includes information for the District of Port Edward.
The SERC survey conducted in 2011 for the Kitsault Mine Project reported the technical skills breakdown
of Nisga’a Nation members (Table 12-14). The most common technical skill reported by Nisga’a Nation
members was carpentry. Other trades relevant to pipeline construction were also identified, such as
welder, mechanic and pipefitter (Rescan 2012).
Page 12-73
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-14
NISGA’A NATION TECHNICAL SKILLS
Trade
Millwright
Mechanic
Electrician
Welder
Pipefitter
Carpenter
Other
Total
Source:
Note:
Count
Percent of Responses
Percent of Cases
Number of Apprentices
Number of Journey Persons
5
15
8
13
7
38
17
103
4.9
14.6
7.8
12.6
6.8
36.9
16.5
100.0
7.2
21.7
11.6
18.8
10.1
55.1
24.6
149.3
3
9
7
9
4
24
-56
2
6
1
31
3
121
-27
Rescan 2012
1
Some respondents did not answer all questions; columns do not equal total count.
Project Labour Force Requirements
Labour Supply and Demand
The proposed Project originates in northeast BC, which is an area with very low unemployment (i.e., 3.9%
in May 2012). Northeast BC also has the highest average annual income in the province. Employers in
the northeast have increased the incidence of fly-in/fly-out work arrangements to bring in workers from
other parts of BC and Canada to meet the labour demand (Ingenia Consulting 2012).
In contrast, unemployment in northwest BC as characterized by the North Coast-Nechako Region is much
higher. Table 12-15 compares labour force numbers, labour force participation rates, and employment
and unemployment rates in the North Coast-Nechako and northeast regions, as well as for the province
as a whole.
TABLE 12-15
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SELECT DEVELOPMENT REGIONS
Characteristic
Labour force, 2011
Participation rate
Employment rate
2011 average unemployment rate
May 2012 unemployment rate
Source:
British Columbia
2,458,000
65.0%
60.2%
7.5%
6.9%
North Coast-Nechako
47,400
71.1%
64.9%
8.6%
11.6%
Northeast
39,100
76.1%
72.4%
4.9%
3.9%
Ingenia Consulting 2012
High unemployment rates in the North Coast-Nechako Region can be attributed to a general, long-term
decline in key resource industries such as forestry and fishing. However, the economy in northwest BC is
expected to grow faster than the rest of the province in the near future due to factors including: the
projected expansion of Asian markets for commodities; the positioning of the area as Canada’s Asia
Pacific Gateway; and the major construction projects planned for the region (Skeena-Nass Centre for
Innovation in Resource Economics [SNCIRE] 2011).
Labour demand is expected to increase as a result of proposed or committed projects in several
industries, including: hydro/power generation, distribution and transmission; mining; independent power
projects; port and industrial development; and pipelines (SNCIRE 2011). In 2011, development scenarios
for the region that ranged from Conservative (i.e., only confirmed projects) to Optimistic (i.e., all projects
considered to be likely) estimated that projects in northwest BC will create from 4,000 to 12,000 direct
and indirect jobs up to 2021. In addition, attrition from an aging workforce and an expected partial
recovery for the pulp and paper as well as mining industries are expected to add to the labour demand in
the region over the next decade (SNCIRE 2011).
Page 12-74
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
The gap between labour supply and demand is expected to be at a peak from 2016 to 2019. The
following skills will be in greatest demand (BC Natural Gas Workforce Strategy Committee 2013):
•
construction trades helpers and labourers;
•
steamfitters and pipefitters;
•
welders;
•
gas fitters;
•
truck drivers;
•
carpenters;
•
concrete finishers;
•
heavy equipment operators;
•
crane operators; and
•
electricians and instrumentation technicians.
Local, provincial and even national labour force conditions have the potential to influence the
development of proposed industrial projects; for example, regional labour shortages will increase the
challenge of attracting and keeping qualified workers.
Project Labour Requirements - Terrestrial Construction
The construction of the initial pipeline and compressor stations will require a labour force for activities
such as: clearing; access construction; grading; right-of-way and ditch blasting; stringing, bending,
welding, coating and tying-in of pipe segments; backfilling; construction of water crossings; and clean-up.
If constructed, a second pipeline would require a somewhat smaller workforce as many activities, such as
clearing, access development and grading will have already been completed.
Project Labour Requirements – Marine Construction
Marine construction will consist of:
•
seabed modification in Alice Arm and Brooke Shoal;
•
installation of shore approaches;
•
pipelaying activities; and
•
pipeline commissioning.
The marine portion of the proposed Project will require a substantial number of highly skilled and
specialized workers. There are relatively few firms that can install large diameter marine pipelines, and
their specialized ships, equipment and crews are in high demand globally. Similarly, the ships and
equipment used to prepare the seabed for pipeline installation are specific to those tasks and their crews
are specialists in operating the necessary equipment.
Aside from the seabed contouring and pipe-laying activities, the vessels involved in delivering pipe,
equipment and crews are less specialized and may be obtained in northwest BC communities. Tugs,
barges and crew transport vessels are available in the Prince Rupert area.
In support of these positions, additional opportunities will be available during proposed Project
construction. Deckhands and shore workers will be needed. Relatively few of these positions will be
required compared to the skilled and specialist workers on the marine portion of the proposed Project.
Page 12-75
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
If constructed, the marine component of a second pipeline would provide similar benefits and
opportunities for that phase of the Project.
Project Operation
During the operations phase, compressor stations will be staffed with teams of employees consisting of
electrical, instrumentation and mechanical specialists. Approximately five employees will be needed for
each station, with two required per shift. Other team positions will be in measurement, communications,
safety, administration, corrosion control and valve servicing. The total number of staff needed to operate
the WCGT system will be approximately 44, plus Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) staff
at Spectra Energy’s facilities in other regions of the province. SCADA control centres remotely monitor the
flow of natural gas through the pipelines.
Periodic vegetation management will require workers to clear vegetation from the Project footprint. This
work is typically contracted and occurs at irregular intervals when required by the vegetation growth in an
area. The number of workers needed also varies according to the clearing method used, terrain and
deadlines established for completing the work. The unpredictable nature of the work prevents accurate
estimates of the number of workers needed. Tree growth rates vary from the eastern to western portions
of the proposed Project, but the average interval between vegetation management initiatives could range
from 5 to 10 years.
Training
Training programs to develop skilled technical workers will be integral to increasing the benefits of the
proposed Project and reducing associated barriers to employment. Effective training programs will also
help to alleviate the challenges of job growth associated with the oil and gas sector, and all industrial
activities in northern BC. The Northwest Regional Workforce Table established a Regional Skills Training
Plan that outlines several goals, including:
•
increase Aboriginal peoples’ participation in high-demand occupations; and
•
encourage collaboration among industry and regionally-based training providers
(Northwest Community College 2013).
Technical training for fields such as oil and gas is needed in the northeast, North Coast, Nechako and
Cariboo development regions. The capacity of technical training programs is typically limited to
16 students per class. There are also obstacles to apprenticeships, particularly in rural parts of BC. At
least 12 months is required to develop and implement training initiatives that respond to industry
demands (Ingenia Consulting 2012).
First Nations face challenges of limited post-training work opportunities in rural areas and some students
may be unwilling to leave their communities to seek work. Difficulties with mathematics skills, consistent
attendance and the distances that instructors must travel also pose barriers (Ingenia Consulting 2012).
Successful First Nations training programs have the following characteristics:
•
math and English upgrades;
•
an effective connection between instructors and students;
•
individualized training to suit student abilities;
•
replication of real-life situations (i.e., workshops); and
•
connection with the community (Ingenia Consulting 2012).
Nisga’a Nation Training Programs
The Wilp Wilxo’oskwhl Nisga’a Institute (WWNI) primarily operates out of the Nisga’a Village of
Gitwinksihlkw. WWNI offers a Bachelor of Arts (BA) program through the University of Northern BC
(UNBC) as well as on-demand courses, including vocational, technical and academic training. Vocational
Page 12-76
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
and technical courses through WWNI are also offered in Prince Rupert and Terrace. WWNI offers a
Master’s of Arts program from which the first cohort graduated in 2013 (Kervel, Nyce pers. comm.).
The majority of students are Nisga’a, however, students from UNBC, the University of Victoria and other
locations also attend WWNI. Enrollment in vocational and technical courses varies depending on job
demand and the expiration of existing tickets. In 2013, there were approximately 60 to 80 registrants in
the BA program (Kervel, Nyce pers. comm.). Students that participate in WWNI vocational and technical
training programs are usually successful at finding seasonal employment in mining and forestry (Kervel,
Nyce pers. comm.). The facility has led to increased employment in industry for Nisga’a Nation (Griffin,
McKay pers. comm.).
The NLG has a $700,000 budget to invest in employment training and capacity building in the villages
(B. Mercer pers. comm.). Training opportunities have been developed for Nisga’a Nation by the Tribal
Resources Investment Corporation (TRICORP) through the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training
Strategy. The NLG will be assuming responsibility for training programs from TRICORP in the near future.
Some residents in Gitlaxt’aamiks have completed heavy equipment operator courses
(B Mercer pers. comm.).
BC Hydro provided funding for training programs to increase employment opportunities for the Northwest
Transmission Line (NTL) Project. Courses offered included first aid, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) awareness,
fire suppression and traffic control (flagging). Other funding for prospective students is available in the
form of grants, however, students need to meet a set of defined criteria. For example, potential students
cannot have worked in the previous 2 years, which can be challenging for those that are underemployed
or seasonally employed. WWNI receives provincial funding each year but it is primarily targeted to the BA
program with limited funding going to the vocational and technical programs. The Northwest Community
College provided funding for Nisga’a language courses offered through WWNI. Through the Northwest
Community College, WWNI also offers courses in carpentry, residential building maintenance and log
home construction (Kervel, Nyce pers. comm.).
The Nisga’a Commercial Group (NCG) manages the Nisga’a corporations described in the next
subsection and also provides in-house industry training, including Workplace Hazardous Materials
Information System training and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) training (A. Mercer pers. comm.).
Nisga’a Citizens’ Business Activities
Nisga’a Business Profile
Nisga’a Nation has diverse business activities that include sectors such as forestry, construction, food
services, tourism, archeological and environmental monitoring, transportation, and fishing (NLG 2009).
The NCG is responsible for the management of Nisga’a corporations, which helps to ensure a separation
between the economic interests of Nisga’a Nation and the NLG. The NLG has created the following
Nisga’a corporations:
•
Nisga’a Fisheries Ltd., which is responsible for the sale of Nisga’a fish;
•
Lisims Forest Resources LLP, which is responsible for the harvest, marketing and sale
of Nisga’a forest resources;
•
Lisims Backcountry Adventures Inc., which provides wilderness tourism and cultural
experiences to visitors; and
•
enTel Communications Inc., which is responsible for supplying broadband internet
access to the Nass Area (NLG 2009, 2013).
The above entities are managed by the NCG. According to the Chief Executive Officer, the NCG also
provides labour management contracts for major projects in the area and maintains a database of
approximately 100 Nisga’a members. The database includes information on the skill sets of each
individual. The NCG can provide the following services:
•
environmental monitors;
Page 12-77
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
•
clearance crews along hydroelectric lines;
•
bear monitors/wildlife monitors;
•
marine and freshwater fisheries monitors;
•
Medic 3 Unrestricted staff and 2 Medic 3 vehicles;
•
surveying assistants;
•
fallers and slashers;
•
general labourers;
•
fire management;
•
camp management;
•
water supply services; and
•
internet services (A. Mercer pers. comm.).
Nass Area Enterprises (NAE) is the sister company to the NCG and manages Nass Camp. Nisga’a
Nation purchased Nass Camp in 2010, located approximately 10 km east of Gitlaxt’aamiks. The camp is a
dry camp which can accommodate 150 individuals and is largely self-contained (Tait pers. comm.). NAE
has also been employed as a construction company on the NTL Project (A. Mercer pers. comm.).
Table 12-16 identifies the range of sectors occupied by Nisga’a businesses. The majority of respondents
indicated that they operated a business in the tourism/accommodation/food services sector. Four
respondents had businesses that provided services in the mining, quarrying, and oil and gas sector
(Rescan 2012).
TABLE 12-16
MAIN SECTORS OCCUPIED BY NISGA’A BUSINESSES
Sector
Tourism/accommodation/food services
Retail and wholesale sales
Other services (including government)
Information, culture and recreation
Cultural industries
Health care and social assistance
Professional scientific
Manufacturing
Mining, quarrying, oil, gas
Educational services
Business, building and other support
services
Transportation
Utilities
Fishing
Forestry
Construction
Total
Source:
Rescan 2012
Page 12-78
Frequency
14
7
4
7
5
3
1
2
4
3
7
5
1
5
5
6
79
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Addressing Barriers to Obtaining Contracts
Obstacles to Nisga’a businesses participating in mine projects were identified as limited business
opportunities, inflation in local prices or wages and shortage of qualified workers (Rescan 2012). These
obstacles can also be applied to the proposed Project. Nisga’a business operators indicated that project
proponents could assist businesses in obtaining contracts by providing direct awards instead of
competitive bids. Early payment arrangements and smaller contracts were also highlighted as beneficial
to local businesses in securing contracts (Rescan 2012).
The NLG Economic Development Manager/Project Manager indicated that Nisga’a members completed
and submitted direct award surveys to obtain contracts to work on the NTL Project. However, it did not
appear that the surveys were used and individuals with heavy equipment were not hired
(B. Mercer pers. comm.).
Another barrier for Nisga’a businesses in obtaining project contracts is the conflicting terminology for
required certifications. Often, contracts originate in Alberta, which uses different terminology than BC.
This source of confusion has the potential to affect the success of NCG contract bidding
(A. Mercer pers. comm.).
Natural Resource Activities and Related Earning or Values
The following describes the commercial land and resource use of Nisga’a Nation. Refer to Section 12.2.2
for information pertaining to traditional resource use activities such as hunting, fishing and trapping.
Land Use Plans
The NLG Lands Manager indicated that the following land or resource management plans were
developed by Nisga’a Nation, or included participation by Nisga’a Nation:
•
Nisga’a Nation Land Use Plan;
•
Nass South Sustainable Resource Management Plan (SRMP);
•
Cranberry SRMP;
•
North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP); and
•
Kalum SRMP and LRMP.
These plans are described in more detail below.
Nisga’a Nation Land Use Plan
Nisga’a Nation adopted a land use plan for Nisga’a Lands in December 2002. The purpose of the plan
was to provide guidance consistent with the autonomous governance of Nisga’a Lands and resources as
described in the NFA, and as exercised through the NLG (2002).
The guiding principles as outlined in the plan include:
•
“adherence to the principle of the common bowl;
•
sustainable use of resources on Nisga’a Lands for the benefit of Nisga’a citizens;
•
protection of the environment from ecological degradation; and
•
equitable access to Nisga’a Lands and Nisga’a resources for Nisga’a citizens”
(NLG 2002).
The principle of the common bowl is:
Page 12-79
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
“a collective model that demonstrates how to build sustainable economic prosperity and highlights
the relationship between governance, administration and business development. The model
remains a central reference and objective in building prosperity” (NLG 2012).
The plan describes SMAs on Nisga’a Lands including the Grease Trail, archaeological sites, mushroom
harvesting areas, the Nass Bottomlands area, the Tseax visually sensitive area and other ecologically
sensitive lands. The Kitsault Alternate route crosses the Grease Trail and the Nasoga Gulf route crosses
the Tseax visually sensitive area and the Nass Bottomlands area (Table 12-17). Figure 12-2 shows the
SMAs as defined by the land use plan.
TABLE 12-17
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS ON NISGA’A LANDS
POTENTIALLY CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
KP (NB. to be updated)
KP 7.2 to KP 7.5
KPN 668.2 to KPN 675.0
KPN 685.4 to KPN 686.2
KPN 686.7 to KPN 686.7
KPN 694.4 to KPN 694.5
KPN 696.8 to KPN 697.4
KPN 701.2 to KPN 701.4
KPN 708.1 to KPN 710.8
KPN 712.7 to KPN 713.4
KPN 713.6 to KPN 714.2
KPN 714.7 to KPN 715.5
Source:
Location
Route
Kitsault Alternate
Nasoga Gulf
Nasoga Gulf (cont’d)
Special Management Area
Grease Trail
Tseax visually sensitive area
Nass Bottomlands area
NLG 2002
Other land uses considered in the plan include:
•
resource stewardship zones (areas of forests, agriculture, energy, mineral resources,
fish and wildlife);
•
public use zones (residential and recreational uses as well as community watersheds);
and
•
areas requiring special consideration (heritage preservation and ecological sensitivity)
(NLG 2002).
The plan encourages the development of energy resources and the management of mineral resources
that minimize ecological degradation (NLG 2002).
Page 12-80
.
!
¯
37
V
U
APRIL 2014
Cranberry Junction
FIGURE 12-2
!
.
!
KP 622
NISGA'A NATION LAND USE PLAN
PROPOSED WESTCOAST
CONNECTOR GAS
TRANSMISSION PROJECT
Alice Arm
KP 680.4
!
.
!
K5B
8018
)
"
Kitsault
!
KP 650
Application Routes
Cypress to Cranberry Route
.
!
Kitsault Route
Unk
Kitsault Marine Route
Nasoga Route
Nasoga Marine Route
A la s ka
(U. S . A .)
Alternate Route
Project Facilities
Prince Rupert LNG
_
^
KP 650
K1-K4 Compressor Stations
"
)
)
"
)
"
.
!
K5B Compressor Station
K5A Compressor Station
Highway
892
V
U
Road
Railway
Watercourse
Waterbody
Municipality
Treaty Settlement Land
Provincial Park
113
V
U
.
!
Grease Trail
Mushroom Polygon
Ri
ve
r
KP 50
First Nation Land
Gitlaxt'aamiks
!
Gitwinksihlkw
!
as
s
N
Laxgalts'ap
KP 700
Tseax Polygon
SCALE: 1:375,000
0
2
4
6
8
km
10
(All Locations Approximate)
.
!
NAD83 BC Albers Route current to February 5, 2014
Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants, derived from Natural
Resources Canada 2008; Highways/Roads: ESRI 2005; Railways: United
States National Imagery and Mapping Agency 2000; Hydrography:
IHS Inc. 2004; Municipalities and Regional Districts: BC Forests, Lands
and Natural Resource Operations 2007; Populated Places: Natural
Resources Canada 2010; First Nation Land: Government of Canada
2014; Treaty Settlement Land: IHS Inc. 2013; Parks/Protected Areas,
Conservancy Areas: BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
2008; Special Management Areas: Nisga'a, 2013.
!
Gingolx
!
Although there is no reason to believe that there are
any errors associated with the data used to generate
this product or in the product itself, users of these data
are advised that errors in the data may be present.
Mapped By: SB
KP 750.9
."
!
)
K5A
Checked By: JW
Fort Nelson
Kits
!
BRITISH
COLUMBIA
u mkalu m River
Fort
St. John
!
.
!
KP 100
Dawson
Creek
!
!
Prince
Rupert
!
ific
Khutzeymateen
Provincial Park
Prince
George
Pac
Document Path: P:\GIS-MP\8018\MAP_FILES\CEA\rev10\t8018_Fig12_03_Nisgaa_Special_Management_Areas_A.mxd
Nass Bottomlands Polygon
Nisga'a
Mem oria l La va Bed
Pr ovincial Par k
!
AB
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Cranberry Sustainable Resource Management Plan
The Cranberry SRMP was developed in 2012. The plan area covers approximately 205,120 ha in west
central BC. The plan area follows the boundary of the Cranberry Landscape Unit, established in 2006,
which corresponds with the Kispiox Timber Supply Area (TSA) and the Kispiox Forest District. The Village
of Gitanyow is the only community within the plan area (BC MFLNRO 2012b).
The plan currently offers management direction specifically for forest development. Management direction
for resource-based activities, such as mining, oil and gas development, may be added at a later date
(BC MFLNRO 2012b).
Kalum Land and Resource Management Plan
The Kalum LRMP was developed in 2002. The plan area covers approximately 2.2 million ha in
northwestern BC and the southern portion of the Kalum Forest District. The plan directs the management
of public lands and resources for the Kalum TSA and tree farm licenses. The plan boundary includes the
communities of Terrace, Kitimat and three Aboriginal communities: the Kitselas First Nation; Kitsumkalum
First Nation; and Kitamaat Village. The communities in the Kalum LRMP have expressed concerns about
industrial development that may not be compatible with other resource values (Kalum LRMP Planning
Table 2002).
The plan supports opportunities for mineral and energy resource development by ensuring that
substantial portions of the land base are available for these activities (Kalum LRMP Planning
Table 2002).
Kalum South Sustainable Resource Management Plan
The Kalum South SRMP was completed in April 2006. The primary goal of the SRMP is to implement the
Kalum LRMP objectives and strategies as they relate to forestry development and the Forest and Range
Practices Act.
This plan provides direction to support long-term sustainability of natural resources and the environment.
The plan creates accountability by setting measurable standards for the management of resources
(Integrated Land Management Bureau 2006).
The Kalum South SRMP outlines management direction for community watersheds, biodiversity, grizzly
bear management areas and area-specific management. The biodiversity section identifies OGMAs.
North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan
The North Coast LRMP was developed in 2005. The plan area covers approximately 1.7 million ha in
northern BC at the southern end of the Alaska Panhandle. The plan area is bound by the Pacific Ocean
and the Coast Mountains. The plan area includes opportunities for mineral and energy resource
development. In 2001, approximately 17,000 people lived in the North Coast LRMP plan area, primarily in
Prince Rupert, as well as the communities of Port Edward, Metlakatla, Hartley Bay, Lax Kw’alaams,
Gitxaala and Oona River. The Tsimshian claim Aboriginal rights and title interests over the entire North
Coast LRMP plan area (Coast Forest Conservation Initiative 2004).
Nass South Sustainable Resource Management Plan
The Nass South SRMP was developed in 2012. The plan area covers approximately 662,500 ha,
including the southern portion of the Nass TSA. The plan was developed to address the sustainable
management of land, water and resources. The plan recognizes the importance of conserving ecological
values while providing opportunities for sustainable social and economic development. The plan currently
outlines management direction for forest development. Management direction for resource-based
activities, such as mining, oil and gas development, may be added at a later date (BC MFLNRO 2012c).
Parks and Protected Areas
The segment of the route from KPN 666.7 to KPN 680.9 crosses the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park
(Anhuluut’ukwsim Laxmihl Angwinga’Asanskwhl Nisga’a). The Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park is the
Page 12-82
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
only Class A provincial park crossed by the route. The area is managed jointly by Nisga’a Nation and BC
Parks, and is the first park in BC to be managed through a co-management agreement. The park, which
was established in 1997, is also the first BC provincial park to integrate the interpretation of natural
features with Aboriginal culture (Grant Copeland & Associates and McKay 1997).
The development of a pipeline alignment across Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park will require the
approval of BC Parks and Nisga’a Nation. The nature of permits and approvals required will depend upon
the final location of the route and the nature of the crossing. The Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park
Corridor Protected Area is located 0.4 km northwest of KPN 667.0.
Forestry
Nisga’a Nation is involved in forestry through Lisims Forest Resources LLP. The company is operated by
NCG. Lisims Forest Resources LLP is responsible for managing the harvest and sale of Nisga’a forest
resources. Timber is sold to purchasers in Canada, China, Japan and Korea (NLG 2013). Lisims Forest
Resources LLP is currently looking for partners to expand operations (NLG 2009).
3
3
The Annual Allowable Cut on Nisga’a Lands is 130,000 m , of which 47,000 m was harvested and sold in
2013 (NCG 2013). The volume of timber harvested is increasing annually (NCG 2013). Lisims Forest
Resources LLP collects a levy on behalf of the NLG to ensure the reforestation of cutblocks. The
company provides seasonal employment for up to 43 people for work including contracted forestry
services, recreation site maintenance and invasive plant management. Lisims Forest Resources LLP also
provides training opportunities for Nisga’a people (NCG 2013). Forestry work is currently outsourced to
subcontractors. The transportation of timber is also currently outsourced and issues can arise with
availability of logging trucks in the area due to competition with other development projects (A. Mercer
pers. comm.).
In addition to forest resources, Lisims Forest Resources LLP is involved in the harvest and marketing of
NTFPs (NCG 2013). Nisga’a Nation members harvest a variety of NTFPs, including ferns, medicinal
plants, cedar and mushrooms (Griffin, McKay pers. comm.).
Mushroom pickers do not require tenures, but the NLG manages the activity through Lisims Forest
Resources LLP. Mushroom licenses cost $25 for Nisga’a harvesters and $75 for non-Nisga’a harvesters.
Only Nisga’a members are allowed to harvest in the mushroom harvesting area described in Nisga’a
Nation Land Use Plan (Griffin, McKay pers. comm.). The proposed Project does not cross the mushroom
harvesting area.
No Nisga’a Nation forestry tenures have been identified in or near the right-of-way (Griffin,
McKay pers. comm.). Provincial forestry regulations apply to Lisims Forest Resources LLP harvesting and
silviculture activities (B. Mercer pers. comm.).
Agriculture
Nisga’a Nation does not operate any range tenures near the proposed Project (Griffin,
McKay pers. comm.). Agricultural lands that may be affected by the proposed Project were not identified.
Guide Outfitting
There is one guide outfitting territory located in Nisga’a Lands. The guide outfitting territory spans Nisga’a
Lands and is licensed to a non-Nisga’a operator (Table 12-18).
Page 12-83
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-18
GUIDE OUTFITTING TERRITORIES ON NISGA’A LANDS
POTENTIALLY CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
KP
Route
Certificate Holder1
Certificate No.
WMU
Target Species
KP 605.13 to KP 622.0
KPK 622.0 to KPK 680.4
KPN 622.0 to KPN 729.2
Primary
Kitsault
Nasoga Gulf
Robert Milligan
601036
6-10, 6-11, 6-14,
6-15, 6-16, 6-17
Grizzly bear, moose and mountain
goat
Source:
BC MOE 2010
Note:
1
Certificate holder is also the licensed guide outfitter for the territory.
Tourism
Nisga’a Nation has commercial recreation tenures, including one held by the NLG corporation, Lisims
Backcountry Adventures Inc. No commercial recreation tenures are located near the proposed Project
(Griffin pers. comm.).
Lisims Backcountry Adventures Inc. operates tours in Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park and therefore may
be affected by the proposed Project (Griffin pers comm.). The company provides wilderness tourism and
cultural experiences for visitors to the Nass Valley, including cultural tours of Nisga’a communities,
provincial park tours, guided sport fishing trips and heli-skiing trips. The company also provides jobs for
Nisga’a people (NCG 2013).
Sport fishers use the Nass River for salmon and steelhead fishing. Guides are recommended as there are
few facilities and many areas are difficult to access (Mussio Ventures Ltd. 2009). Several Nisga’a guides
operate on the Nass River (Griffin pers. comm.). Other tourism ventures, including white-water kayaking,
have been proposed for the Nass River (Robinson pers. comm.).
Each Nisga’a Village is developing a tourism strategy and a specific area in which they want to invest.
The 2 year tourism strategy was initiated in 2012. There are currently plans to invest more in tourism
infrastructure and some funds will be allocated to improve signage in the Nass Valley
(B. Mercer pers. comm.).
Commercial Fishing
Nass River fisheries are managed by NLG and DFO, facilitated through the joint Fisheries Management
Committee, which comprises representatives from the federal and provincial governments and Nisga’a
Nation (DFO 2013, NLG 2013). Fisheries are managed to meet commitments in accordance with the NFA
and other obligations, and to provide commercial fishers with harvesting opportunities (DFO 2013).
DFO maintains an office near Gitlaxt’aamiks (Tait pers. comm.). Fishing regulations in the Nass Area
follow the federal guidelines for commercial activities (Griffin pers. comm.). Returns of Nass Area salmon
which are in excess of set escapement targets are harvested in Food, Social and Ceremonial fisheries,
Nisga’a Treaty fisheries, and commercial harvest opportunities (DFO 2013). Nisga’a Nation members
participate in commercial fisheries for all five species of salmon, groundfish, including halibut, and other
species (DFO 2013, Griffin pers. comm., NLG 2013).
The Nisga’a Fisheries Management Program (NFP) is responsible for salmon monitoring, tagging and
data collection, and also conducts stock assessments for salmon and other species in the Nass Area.
The NFP provides training and employment for Nisga’a people (NLG 2013).
The NCG manages Nisga’a Fisheries Ltd., which is responsible for the sale of salmon from marine and
in-river fisheries. Nisga’a Fisheries Ltd. has partnered with Coho Properties, based in Alaska, in order to
expand its market (B. Mercer pers. comm.). Commercial fisheries funds are allocated by the NLG for
fishing boat repair and fleet improvements. Commercial halibut and shrimp quotas have recently been
purchased to help extend the fishing season. A commercial fishing licence bank is also being created to
improve commercial fishing opportunities for Nisga’a Nation members (B. Mercer pers. comm.). Ecotrust
Canada has overseen funding that the NLG invests in commercial fishing boats with the purpose of
Page 12-84
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
improving the Nisga’a fleet (B. Mercer pers. comm.). No seafood processing facilities have been identified
that could be adversely affected by the proposed Project (Griffin pers. comm.).
Energy Production and Transmission
The proposed Project crosses the Kshadin Peak Wind Energy Tenure from KPK 659.2 to KPK 664.9. The
tenure is located to the north of Nisga’a Lands, within the NWA. The tenure is held by a private,
non-Nisga’a company.
According to an NLG staff member, Nisga’a Nation hydroelectric projects have the potential to be
impacted by the proposed Project, but effects would be limited (Griffin pers. comm.).
The NTL Project is a 287 kV, 344 km long transmission line under construction between the Skeena
Substation (near Terrace) and a new substation near Bob Quinn Lake. The NTL Project will allow
BC Hydro to provide high-voltage electricity in northwest BC. Project construction began in January 2012
and the project is expected to be in-service by spring 2014 (BC Hydro and Power Authority 2013). The
proposed Project intersects the NTL Project alignment at KP 609.2, KPN 653.1 to KPN 653.9 and
KPN 660.3 to KPN 660.6.
NLG’s Nass Area Strategy Working Group reviews projects undergoing environmental assessments and
permitting. The working group has reviewed referrals for mineral exploration projects, land tenures, forest
tenures and environmental permits for private companies initiating activities in and near the Nass Area,
including Seabridge Gold Inc., Avanti Mining Corp., Regional Power, Wind River Power Corporation and
Pretium Resources Inc. (Griffin pers. comm., NLG 2013).
Nisga’a Government Revenues and Expenditures
The annual revenues of the NLG totaled approximately $99.7 million in 2013 (NLG 2013). The excess of
revenues over expenses was approximately $23.8 million, with an accumulated end-of-year surplus of
approximately $225.1 million (NLG 2013). NLG expenditures in 2013 totaled $24.6 million (NLG 2013).
Several funds administer NLG finances, including funds for: governance and administration; commercial
fisheries; business development; capital transfers; investments; tangible capital assets; and capital
finance commission (Rescan 2012).
Finances chiefly flow through the government and administration fund, including transfer payments to
Nisga’a Village governments, the Nisga’a Valley Health Authority, Nisga’a School Board #92, and others.
The main areas of NLG expenditures in 2011 were expenses for: administration; programs and services;
land and resources; governance; and fish, wildlife and migratory birds (Rescan 2012).
The NLG invests in a range of business sectors including forestry, fisheries, tourism, construction, camps
and accommodation facilities, and transportation (NLG 2009). The NLG receives operating surpluses
from the commercial entities in which it invests (Rescan 2012).
If the Nasoga route option is selected, the Nisga’a Nation will receive property tax from WCGT where the
proposed Project crosses Nisga’a Lands. The Nisga’a Goods and Service Tax Act outlines the tax
administration agreement between the Government of Canada and the Nisga’a Nation. According to the
Nisga’a Goods and Service Tax Act, the Nisga’a Nation has the right to impose Nisga’a GST and other
amounts as imposed in the Act itself.
Table 12-19 presents the annual property tax revenue to the Nisga’a Nation. The revenue will be an
estimated $5.4 million annually and $273 million over the 50 year operating life of the proposed Project.
TABLE 12-19
PROJECT-RELATED NISGA’A NATION PROPERTY TAX REVENUES (IN 2014 DOLLARS)
Source:
Effect
Annual Tax Revenue
Tax Revenue Over
Project Life
Operating expenditures
$0.006 billion
$0.273 billion
Decision Economics Consulting Group 2013
Page 12-85
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Nisga’a Citizens’ Future Economic Opportunities and Economic Development
The proposed Project is expected to have a positive effect on employment in northern BC. The beneficial
economic effects of the proposed Project include: construction and operating expenditures; employment
generation and business opportunities; local, provincial and federal revenues; and local economic
development.
The Nisga’a have expressed an interest in the development of LNG infrastructure, as a meaningful and
sustainable contribution to its economy and community:
http://www.nisgaanation.ca/sites/default/files/Nisga%27a%20-%20LNG%20Slide%20Deck%20%20Final%20Feb%206%20%2714_0.pdf.
The NLG, the four Nisga’a Villages and the three Urban Locals in Prince Rupert, Terrace and Vancouver
have developed a 10 year strategic economic initiative (2012 to 2022) through the Prosperity for Nisga’a
Nation Project (the Prosperity Project) (NLG 2012). The purpose of the Prosperity Project is to encourage
social change through economic development and is based on the following core objectives:
12.3.1.4
•
“Imagining future possibilities by building best case scenarios;
•
Identifying a shared desired future for a shared economic vision;
•
Developing collaboration strategy to shape the future;
•
Identifying high-level economic actions and identify quick wins;
•
Building long-term capacity;
•
Building alignment to remove duplication and competition between entities; and
•
Developing long-term implementation and monitoring of the Prosperity Plan.” (NLG
2012).
Social Overview
Migration and Population Effects in Nisga’a Nation Communities
Population Size and Demographic Structure
Communities in the Nass Area comprise Nisga’a Nation and non-Nisga’a Nation residents. The registered
population sizes of the Nisga’a Villages are listed in Table 12-20. Recent information on non-Nisga’a
residents in the Nass Area is not available and is not included in Table 12-20.
TABLE 12-20
NISGA’A NATION COMMUNITY POPULATIONS: NOVEMBER 2013
Community
Gitlaxt’aamiks
Gitwinksihlkw
Laxgalts’ap
Gingolx
Total
Source:
Registered Population
on Other Reserves
off Nisga’a Lands
Total Registered Population
868
186
574
407
2,035
51
32
58
70
211
911
181
1,126
1,500
3,718
1,830
399
1,758
1,977
5,964
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2013
The demographic structure of communities in the Nass Area may change in partial response to proposed
major projects. In general, such changes may include an influx of people into Nisga’a Villages during the
construction phases of projects and the departure of non-Nisga’a workers once construction is complete,
with the exception of mining projects, which will require long-term workers as long as the mine is
Page 12-86
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
operational. People employed with various major projects may also opt to remain in communities outside
of the Nass Area, such as Terrace and Prince Rupert, or may be housed in on-site work camps.
The proposed Project will require a large workforce for the construction period. Temporary construction
camps for pipeline construction projects will be occupied for 1 to 2 years during construction, depending
on the length and difficulty of each spread.
The construction phase of the proposed Project would be at least 4 years and could continue for up to
11 years, if and as a second pipeline is constructed. Temporary construction camps will be demobilized
following construction. A smaller number of workers may be required for periodic maintenance activities
(e.g., brushing) during operations, but the short duration of maintenance activities is not likely to attract
in-migration.
Community Infrastructure and Services in Nisga’a Nation Communities
Permanent and Temporary Housing
Assessment of the potential effects of the proposed Project on community infrastructure and services in
Nisga’a Villages necessitates a review of the existing stock of housing and the current capacity of
infrastructure and services, such as water, sewage, electricity and recreation facilities.
The available housing stock in Nisga’a Villages is currently low and overcrowding is an issue in
Gitlaxt’aamiks, Gitwinksihlkw and Gingolx (Rescan 2012). In 2011, there were 690 private dwellings in the
Nisga’a Villages with 590 being occupied by the usual residents (Statistics Canada 2012). Of the
590 residences, 490 were single detached homes, 25 were movable dwellings, and 75 were row houses,
apartments or duplexes (Statistics Canada 2012). The Village of Gitlaxt’aamiks indicated that a new
housing development has been proposed near the baseball diamond located to the northeast of the
existing community housing and infrastructure (Nisyok pers. comm.).
Much of the current housing stock is in need of repair. Approximately 40% of the housing stock was
constructed prior to 1986. Approximately 23% of the total stock is in need of major repairs, while 34%
require minor repairs (Rescan 2012, Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2009). Nisga’a Villages and the village
housing committees are responsible for construction, financing, repair and management of housing. The
condition of private accommodation could also be due to the financial burden placed on the villages as a
result of rental arrears, which may reduce the amount spent on maintenance and repairs.
A waiting list for new housing has been established in Gitlaxt’aamiks, Gitwinksihlkw and Gingolx
(Rescan 2012). Until additional housing can be constructed and repairs made, Nisga’a Villages are likely
to continue to have issues with overcrowding and inadequate accommodations (Rescan 2012). In the
event that the proposed Project does trigger an influx of people into Nisga’a Villages, this effect will be
exacerbated.
Accommodations in Nass Area communities that may be available to house workers during proposed
Project construction include bed and breakfasts, Recreational Vehicle parks, campgrounds and Nass
Camp. Nass Camp has been used by BC Hydro for construction of the Northwest Transmission Line
(Azak, Fekete, Griffin pers. comm.).
The total capacity of temporary accommodation in Gitlaxt’aamiks and Gitwinksihlkw is approximately
272 units (Rescan 2012). While communities outside the Nass Area and work camps will account for
most of the construction-related accommodation needs for the proposed Project, it is also likely that
temporary accommodation in Nisga’a Villages will be required to some degree for the Project during
construction and infrequently during operations.
Emergency Services
The Lisims-Nass Valley RCMP Detachment provides policing services for all Nisga’a Lands. Four
members live in officer houses near the main office, one member lives in Gitlaxt’aamiks and three
members in Laxgalts’ap (Tait pers. comm.). The detachment does not currently have any concerns
related to capacity (Tait pers. comm.). RCMP Marine Services consists of a seven member force and a
catamaran, and is responsible for policing the marine area around Prince Rupert (Tait pers. comm.).
Page 12-87
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Each of the four Nisga’a Villages is responsible for providing fire suppression services. The fire
departments typically consist of one paid Fire Chief and volunteer members (Griffin, McKay pers. comm.).
Treaty negotiations for the NFA did not include the provision of ambulance services on Nisga’a Lands. As
a result, Nisga’a Nation employs a modified vehicle for the purposes of emergency transport to Terrace.
The Village of Gitwinksihlkw now operates a Class A ambulance (Nyce Jr. pers. comm.). An ambulance
located in Terrace or the air ambulance in Prince Rupert can travel to Nisga’a Lands in the event of an
emergency (Tait pers. comm.).
Although there is no formal search and rescue service, Nisga’a Nation members are known to organize
and conduct efficient rescue operations (Tait pers. comm.). Emergency phone services are provided by
the Nisga’a Valley Health Authority (NVHA).
Health Care Services
The Nisga’a government manages the delivery of health care services in Nisga’a communities through
the NVHA. Main clinic services are provided in Gitlaxt’aamiks, with smaller clinics in the other villages.
The nearest full-service hospital is Mills Memorial Hospital, located in Terrace (Rescan 2012). Other local
health care services include dental clinics, home support and residence care, cultural and community
health, mental health and wellness, and youth enrichment (NLG 2013).
Information obtained during technical discussions indicated that many northern BC communities are
struggling to provide health care to existing populations. Concerns were expressed regarding the
increased demand on health care services as a result of the large number of proposed and actual
development projects (Giesbrecht, Halseth, Menounos, Thibault pers. comm.).
The large workforce that will be involved in the construction phase of the Project is expected to increase
pressure on health care services in some northern BC communities. Workers will occasionally require the
services of walk-in clinics, hospitals or pharmacies while construction is underway. It is considered
unlikely that workers will increase pressure on the NVHA as most workers will go to Terrace. Project
operations are not expected to increase pressure on local health care services.
Social Services
The Nisga’a Villages have social services departments, which are intended to provide or manage
programs including basic and special needs, home care for seniors and the disabled, training and
education support, and domestic violence prevention and support (Rescan 2012).
Similar to effects on health care services, there is the potential for increased pressure on social services
resulting from an increase in population during proposed Project construction, however, this effect is likely
to be small in Nisga’a Villages. It is possible that work camps can adversely affect mental wellness of
workers due to extended absences from families and the inability to participate in domestic roles
(Maitland pers. comm.). In response to these and other adverse social effects of prolonged absences to
work on major projects, some workers may require the services of mental health practitioners, drug and
alcohol treatment, or other counselling services. Even so, various industries require individuals to work in
this way and shift lengths and rotations are typically developed with the aforementioned considerations in
mind.
The potentially negative social effects resulting from demographic changes that accompany development
were identified as a concern during discussions with representatives from Gitwinksihlkw, Gitlaxt’aamiks
and the Lisims-Nass Valley RCMP at a Gitlaxt’aamiks Council Meeting on July 23, 2013. (Nyce Jr.,
Tait pers. comm.).
Recreation and Marine Transportation Facilities
Each of the four Nisga’a Villages has a modern recreation centre providing team sports and other
programs. The centres were an outcome of the NFA negotiations (Tait pers. comm.). The facilities are
currently underutilized due to the lack of staff trained to maintain and operate these facilities. In general,
recreation and entertainment opportunities for youth are limited in Nisga’a Villages (Tait pers. comm.).
Nisga’a Nation does have the resources to develop other recreational facilities, but they do not want to
invest in infrastructure that cannot be properly managed (Tait pers. comm.).
Page 12-88
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Nisga’a Child and Family Services provides community-based programs (Rescan 2012). Potential
socio-economic growth from major projects may have positive benefits for communities that may lead to
increased events at recreation centres and upgrades to facilities (Rescan 2012).
The Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park offers recreation opportunities including canoeing,
cycling, fishing, hiking, hunting, swimming and snowmobiling (BC Parks 2013). The park offers a 16-site
vehicle campground, picnic areas, a visitor information centre, boat launches and hiking trails
(Rescan 2012). Nisga’a Nation has identified two recreational sites under the Nisga’a Forest Act: Dragon
Lake Campground and Dragon Lake Picnic Site. The two sites are located approximately 6 km north of
Nass Camp along the Nass forest service road (NLG 2013). Scenic recreation areas which may be
affected by the Project include the recreation sites at Dragon Lake and the Tseax visually sensitive area
identified in the Nisga’a Nation Land Use Plan (Griffin, McKay pers. comm., NLG 2002).
Laxgalts’ap and Gingolx are the two tidal Nisga’a communities. Laxgalts’ap has a dock and a boat launch.
Gingolx has a large breakwater facility, high water and low water boat launches, a helipad and a marine
tenure for a float plane company from Prince Rupert (Griffin, McKay pers. comm.). Gitwinksihlkw has boat
launches and a dock for the salmon fishery (Nyce Jr. pers. comm.).
Community Utilities
The NLG and individual Nisga’a Villages provide community utilities including domestic water supply as
well as solid and liquid waste management (i.e., sewer, garbage collection and landfill services).
Domestic water for Gitlaxt’aamiks is drawn from a glacier near the community and filtered, and upgrades
are in the planning phase as the community expands. Community water for Gingolx is drawn from a
reservoir. Gitwinksihlkw obtains water from the Nass River and employs an advanced filtration system. No
upgrades are currently anticipated (Rescan 2012).
Nisga’a Nation members are concerned about the protection of water rights, specifically on the Kwinatahl
River, Kshadin River, Tchitin River, Scowbar Creek, Ishkheenikh River, Ksemamaith Creek, Tseax River
and Ksedin Creek (NLG et al. 2000). In addition, the NLG has expressed concerns about potential Project
effects on the community water supply. Construction of the NTL Project increased sedimentation in the
Gitzyon Community Watershed upstream of the domestic water supply intake for the Village of
Gitlaxt’aamiks.
Sewer systems in Nisga’a Villages are generally described as being in good condition. Each village is
responsible for the collection and disposal of their own solid and liquid waste (Griffin,
McKay pers. comm.). Solid waste is disposed of at the Nass Valley Landfill, which services the four
Nisga’a Villages as well as private landowners (Nyce Jr. pers. comm.). The water and sewer system in
Gitlaxt’aamiks are not currently being used at full capacity (Rescan 2012).
Electricity is provided for all Nisga’a Villages by the provincial electricity grid (Rescan 2012). In
Gitwinksihlkw, the power supply can be unreliable and many community members have backup
generators (Nyce Jr. pers. comm.).
Roads and Highways
Highway 113 is a Class C provincial highway which heads northwest from the Nass Valley to Terrace.
The highway number marks the number of years it took for Nisga’a Nation to reach a treaty agreement
with the governments of Canada and BC (TranBC 2014). Planned road and safety improvements have
included replacement of the single-lane Diksangiik Bridge between Laxgalts’ap and Gitwinksihlkw as well
as roadside barriers (TranBC 2014).
Nisga’a representatives have expressed the view that the road from Nass Camp to Highway 37
(Cranberry Junction) will likely need to be upgraded to accommodate construction equipment in the near
future to accommodate increasing levels of truck and other traffic from development projects (Azak,
Fekete, Griffin pers. comm.). Some forest roads are managed by NLG, although arterial forest roads are
managed by the BC Ministry of Transportation (BC MOT) or BC MFLNRO (Griffin, McKay pers. comm).
Primary and secondary highway rights-of-way were granted to the Crown and are the responsibility of BC
MOT or BC MFLNRO (Griffin, McKay pers. comm).
Page 12-89
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Schools
Nisga’a School District No. 92 provides education services in Nisga’a Villages. For the 2012 to 2013
school year, Nisga’a School District No. 92 had 371 students enrolled. An estimated 403 students were
registered for the upcoming 2013 to 2014 school year. The educational facilities in the school district are
operating at 58.1% capacity (BC Ministry of Education 2013).
Elementary schools are in each of the four communities. The Nisga’a Adult and Continuing Education
Program for grades 8 to 12 and the WWNI for post-secondary education are located in Gitwinksihlkw. In
Gingolx, a child care facility provides 24 spaces for cultural activities as well as language learning
opportunities for infants and school-aged children (Rescan 2012). Gitwinksihlkw also has a daycare
licensed by Northern Health (Nyce pers. comm.).
It is not considered to be likely that the proposed Project will strain the capacity of education facilities in
Nisga’a Villages. The proposed Project is not expected to result in increased enrolment on schools due to
the characteristics of the workforce and the mobile nature of pipeline construction spreads. An unknown
number of post-secondary students may leave their programs to work on the proposed Project. Students
who find gainful employment are likely to consider such an outcome to be a beneficial effect of the
Project, even if they leave school before completing their programs.
Work camps are demobilized following restoration and workers disperse to other projects or to return
home, so no Project-related effects on social services are anticipated during Project operation.
The proposed Project may contribute to a positive effect on school enrollment if people are more inclined
to remain in the Nisga’a communities as a result of a perceived improvement in economic opportunities. If
Nisga’a citizens and non-Aboriginal people do move into Nisga’a Villages as a result of the Project or
other major projects, local schools will be able to take on additional students (Rescan 2012). Additional
teachers would likely be needed (Rescan 2012).
Educational attainment levels in the Nisga’a Villages are lower than provincial levels (Rescan 2012).
Education and training are likely to be critical factors in determining the level of employment of Nisga’a
citizens during construction and operation of the proposed Project and other major projects.
Family and Community Well-being
The potential social risks to family and community well-being from the proposed Project are linked to
potential changes in social conditions in Nisga’a communities. Existing social conditions in Nisga’a
communities are characterized using available socio-economic indicators reported by BC Stats, including:
children at risk indicators such as the percentage of children in care and the percentage of children
reading below standard levels; youth at risk indicators such as the percentage of youth receiving
employment insurance, percentage of youth who did not graduate and rate of serious crime offences; and
economic hardship indicators such as the percentage of seniors receiving government income support.
Table 12-21 provides information on social conditions specific to Nisga’a communities in the Nisga’a
Local Health Area (LHA), an administrative area delineated by the Northern Health Authority.
Socio-economic statistics pertaining to the Nisga’a LHA are shown with numbers from neighbouring LHAs
as well as BC as a whole. Figure 3.1 in the Social, Economic and Health Technical Data Report
(Appendix 2-Q) shows the boundaries of LHAs.
Page 12-90
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-21
AVAILABLE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS IN THE NISGA’A LOCAL HEALTH AREA
Source:
Total Serious
Crime (Charges
per 1,000 12 to 17
years)
Percentage of
Youth Aged
15 to 24 years
Receiving
Employment
Insurance
Non-Graduates
Aged 19 to 24 (%)
Total Serious
Crime
(Offences per
1,000 in
2010/2011)
Percentage of
Seniors
Receiving
Maximum
Government
Income Support
BC
Nisga’a
LHA
Terrace
LHA
Prince
Rupert LHA
Economic Hardship
Indicators (2011)
Percent Below
Standard Reading
Levels (Grades 4
and 7)
Location
Youth At Risk Indicators (2011)
Children in Care
(per 1,000 less
than 18 years)
Children At Risk Indicators (2011)
9.1
20.2
3.8
0.8
27.9
11.1
3.1
19.8
69.3
20.9
3.2
72.1
18.6
13.3
17.0
26.3
6.8
0.9
47.0
12.3
2.6
22.1
38.9
10.9
0.9
38.5
13.9
2.1
BC Stats 2013
The proposed Project may affect the well-being of families and communities due to changes in social
conditions brought about by demographic and population changes. For example, work camps are
proposed near Nisga’a communities for proposed Project construction, which will lead to a sudden
increase in local population size. The demographic structure of communities may also be altered by the
increased number of males of working age that tend to dominate resource development and construction
industries. Higher rates of crime, drug and alcohol abuse, unplanned pregnancies, and communicable
diseases have been known to accompany such sudden population and demographic changes, affecting
the social condition of local communities. These effects are typically associated with work camps for
mines or other long-term development projects.
Pipeline project work camps are occupied for only 1 to 2 years during construction, depending on the
length and difficulty of each spread. Work schedules allow skilled workers that are hired from an external
workforce to travel home during off-time periods rather than remaining in communities near to the
construction site. Accordingly, temporary work camps for the proposed Project near the Nisga’a Villages
are expected to have a minimal effect on the social condition of these communities. Even so, information
obtained through technical discussions indicated concerns regarding the effects of work camps near
communities.
Work camps are demobilized following restoration, so no effects on social condition during proposed
Project operations are anticipated.
The potentially negative social effects resulting from demographic changes that accompany development
were identified as a concern during discussions with representatives from the Northern Health Authority,
Gitwinksihlkw and Gitlaxt’aamiks. Concerns were raised by representatives from NLG that the proposed
Project may exacerbate existing social issues, such as substance abuse.
The Commander for the Lisims-Nass Valley RCMP indicated that work camps are not expected to result
in capacity issues for the detachment. The NTL Project has not resulted in an increase in the number of
calls although, in general, the overall increase in industrial activity and expansion of works camps may
increase pressure on the detachment (Tait pers. comm.).
Occupational and Non-Occupational Health Risks
The potential human health effects of proposed Project construction and operation are assessed in
Section 8.0 of the Application. The human health effects assessment has been completed through an
analysis of the potential effects of the proposed Project on the following five KIs: Soil and Sediment
Quality; Country Food; Noise; Respiratory Health; and Drinking Water and Recreational Water Quality.
Page 12-91
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Detailed information regarding the above KIs for human health is contained in the Social, Economic and
Health Technical Data Report, Appendix 2-Q.
Soil Quality
In August 2013, TERA completed a Limited Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) to identify any
pre-existing contaminated sites crossed by the proposed Project. The PSI area was defined as the length
of the assumed pipeline centre line, including route alternatives and new proposed access roads, current
to August 28, 2013. Areas extending 500 m on both sides of the assumed centre line were assessed in
accordance with BC’s Preliminary Site Investigation Standards (BC MOE 2005).
The goal of the PSI was to identify Areas of Interest (AI) using the most recent Project webmap. AIs
denote features of potential contamination such as inhabited sites, industrial sites, mining sites, roads and
rail lines. The identification of AIs is based on land use, intensity of human activity and the professional
judgement of the assessors. A total of 13 AIs were identified, one of which is located in the Nass Area at
KP 693.2. The site was identified as a possible former mining site.
Following the PSI, searches of the BC Site Registry, Federal Contaminated Site Inventory and
information from Abacus Datagraphics Ltd. were conducted for each of the 13 AIs. The AI identified in the
Nass Area was not found in these databases and there are no records of ongoing or residual
contamination at this site. The Social, Economic and Health Technical Data Report, Appendix 2-Q
contains details on the Limited Stage 1 PSI report.
Sediment Quality
Between April 1981 and October 1982, Amax of Canada operated a molybdenum mine at Kitsault, which
deposited approximately 4 million tons of mine tailings into Alice Arm from a submerged outfall at a depth
of 50 m. Due to this historical deposition in Alice Arm, there was a need to evaluate the seabed
sediments to assess the feasibility of aligning the pipeline route without causing human health impacts.
Construction activities that have the potential to disturb sediments and release contaminants include:
•
dredging of sediments in the intertidal zone and nearshore subtidal zone at the head of
Alice Arm;
•
removal of a portion of the sill at Alice Rock;
•
sediment bed modification to smooth out the bottom; and
•
pipeline installation.
Contaminants in the marine sediments in Alice Arm may be disturbed by pre-construction activities of the
Project, such as dredging. Dredging operations and other human activities in marine areas have the
capacity to remobilize contaminated sediments and release contaminants into the water column. For
example, metals may become mobilized during dredging through the release of pore water containing
dissolved metals and by desorption from sediment particles (Eggleton and Thomas 2004). Dissolved
metals may become bioavailable and as such may be transferred to benthic organisms such as bivalves
and other shellfish (Eggleton and Thomas 2004).
3
An estimated 186,000 m of material will be dredged and sidecast at the Kitsault landfall site. Most of this
material will be the gravels that underlay the mud flat, and approximately 20% will be fine sand/silt/clay
sediments.
For a more detailed discussion on sediment quality, please refer to the assessment of Seabed Sediment
and Related Water Quality in Section 4.4.6.
In November 2013, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was completed to investigate the human
health risks from the historical tailings deposition and associated metals concentrations in Alice Arm
(Refer to Appendix C of Appendix 2-Q). The HHRA findings were compared with Health Canada
standards for acceptable trace metal levels. Constituents of potential concern (COPCs) identified by the
HHRA included arsenic, cadmium, chromium and iron. These metal concentrations were slightly higher
Page 12-92
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
than the maximum permissible concentration. Future metal concentrations are anticipated to be similar to
the current concentrations, with the exception of periods of dredging and other bottom sediment activities.
The study indicated that Nisga’a residents regularly consume seafood from Alice Arm.
The tolerable daily intake of the COPCs identified in the HHRA is provided in Table 12-22. The potential
toxicological effects associated with these COPCs were estimated based on the exposure assessment
and toxicity values. The risk estimates of potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks can be
found in the HHRA, including samples collected at the head of Alice Arm (near Kitsault) and near Alice
Rock (near the mouth of Alice Arm), and are considered to be representative of the baseline conditions
(Core6 Environmental Ltd. 2013).
TABLE 12-22
HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY VALUES
Constituents of Potential Concern
Tolerable Daily Intake (mg per kg)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
0.0003
0.001
0.001
0.7
Sources: Health Canada 2010a, United States Environmental Protection Agency 2014
The HHRA found that the risk to human health from eating crab harvested from the head of Alice Arm is
considered to be negligible. Concentrations of arsenic were less than the Health Canada acceptable
value. The risk to human health from eating mussels is considered to be low to moderate based on total
arsenic and non-carcinogenic risk from exposure to iron. The HHRA stated that recreational and
residential receptors may safely eat mussels up to 28 times per year based on the Health Canada
acceptable non-carcinogenic values and 140 times per year based on BC MOE values (Core6
Environmental Ltd. 2013). Refer to the HHRA for additional key findings.
Country Food
Country foods are considered to be plants and animals that are picked, trapped, fished, hunted or
otherwise harvested for domestic consumption (i.e., not sold commercially). Nisga’a Nation members
harvest a wide variety of country foods for domestic purposes, including: wildlife; fish; shellfish; many
species of plants; and fungi (refer to Section 12.2.2 for more detail). For confidentiality reasons, country
foods used for medicinal purposes are not included. Country Food was included as a KI to assess the
potential effects of the construction and operation of the Project on country food quality and quantity from
right-of-way clearing, petroleum product spills during construction or by the application of herbicides
during vegetation management activities (Health Canada 2004). Pre-construction and construction
activities in the marine environment may also affect marine country foods through the mobilization of
contaminated sediments, as described in the previous section.
Traditional foods and consumption rates can vary widely depending upon location. For example, the diet
of inland First Nation groups likely includes greater proportions of wild game, whereas coastal First Nation
groups likely harvest and consume more marine fish. Health Canada’s Human Health Risk Assessment
for Country Foods states that 6-40% of total dietary energy consumed by Aboriginal people is from
country foods. A low of 6% occurs close to urban centres and communities to a high of 40% in more
remote areas (Health Canada 2010b). Shellfish and crab harvesting are known First Nation activities in
the Alice Arm fjord (Core6 Environmental Ltd. 2013).
Linear features such as pipeline rights-of-way can lead to increased harvesting activities by humans by
improving access to remote areas. Predation pressure or wildlife mortality by wolves has also been found
to increase near linear corridors (James and Stuart-Smith 2000). In addition, maintenance activities and
vegetation management that is carried out periodically on rights-of-way may alter perceptions of country
food quality. Potential effects on country food quality are often based on perceptions of contamination
risks, rather than by the presence of a conclusive problem (Naspetti and Zanoli 2006).
Page 12-93
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Noise
Noise is viewed as a general stressor and excessive noise exposure may contribute to the development
of health effects such as high blood pressure, coronary disease, ulcers, colitis and migraine headaches.
Annoyance and annoyance-related effects such as sleep disturbance are other perceptible noise effects
can be linked to noise (DeGagne and Lewis 2001). Health Canada considers the following noise-induced
end points as health effects: noise-induced hearing loss; sleep disturbance; interference with speech
comprehension; complaints; and change in the percent of the population highly annoyed.
Most of the proposed Project is located in remote and unpopulated areas and, consequently, few
residents are expected to be affected by construction noise. Residences near the proposed Project in
Nisga’a Lands are near to KPN 666.0 (Gitlaxt’aamiks). Background noise sources are primarily vehicle
operations on highways and active Forest Service Roads as well as industrial activities. Noise
disturbance from helicopters will primarily occur during the proposed Project’s construction phase. Noise
disturbances from construction activities will be associated with blasting, grading, pipe delivery, and
installation and backfilling. Truck traffic noise from movement of workers and materials will be heard in
several communities.
Respiratory Health
Air quality objectives are government-established limits on the amounts of contaminants in the
atmosphere and are intended to protect human health and the environment. Baseline ambient air quality
for the purposes of this assessment focuses on substances of interest relative to the proposed Project
emissions which include Nitrogen oxide (NO2), Sulphur oxide (SO2), Carbon monoxide (CO) and
particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 µm (PM2.5). All of these compounds have the ability to
affect human health
Open burning releases fine particulates that can reach deep into lung tissue and cause symptoms such
as coughing, wheezing, chest pain, shortness of breath, and the aggravation of lung and heart problems.
Smoke from open burning can be much more harmful to small children, the elderly and people with lung
problems such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Canadian Lung Association 2013).
During technical discussions with the BC MOE, it was suggested that alternatives to open burning near
communities be considered and that slash burning near communities be minimized (Fisher, Godon,
Hoffman, McCormick pers. comm.).
Refer to the Air Quality Report, Appendix 2-A, for more information regarding Project-related air
emissions.
Drinking Water and Recreational Water Quality
Northern Health Public Health Protection is responsible for monitoring water quality in the Human Health
RSA. Environmental Health Officers routinely inspect, sample and assess community water systems.
Water quality information for the Gitzyon Community Watershed was not available from Northern Health
Public Health Protection.
Recreational water includes:
“any natural fresh, marine or estuarine bodies of water that are used for recreation,” (Health
Canada 2013).
Guidelines have been established that consider human health risks due to primary contact activities such
as swimming, windsurfing, white water rafting and waterskiing, as well as secondary contact activities
such as tour canoeing or fishing (Health Canada 2012). These and other recreational activities take place
in freshwater and marine ecosystems throughout the Health RSA. Recreational waterbodies with the
potential to be affected by the proposed Project include the Nass River in Nisga’a Lands, however, due to
low temperatures in the Nass River, direct contact with recreational water that may have reduced quality
will likely be limited.
Refer to Section 3.4.8 for more information regarding water supply infrastructure, including groundwater
wells, points of diversion (PODs) and community watersheds.
Page 12-94
Nisga’a Nation
12.3.1.5
April 2014
Cultural Overview
Refer to Section 12.1.2 of this document for more detailed information on Nisga’a culture.
Effects of Environmental Impacts on the Cultural Activities and Practices of Nisga’a Citizens
The identification of the effects of environmental impacts on the cultural activities and practices of Nisga’a
citizens described in Section 12.1.2 was conducted through a literature/desktop review, Aboriginal
consultation and biophysical field participation. The issues identified from these sources also have
informed the potential effects of the proposed Project on the identified interests of Nisga’a Nation
(Section 12.1.2.4). Where potential interactions are likely to occur, the potential effect is identified in
Table 12-24. Table 12-24 also identifies specific geographic areas compiled from these sources to be
important (as available) as well as the measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate those effects. Where there is
overlap between a Nisga’a Nation Interest and a VC, the information from other sections of the
Application are cross-referenced and summarized in Table 12-24.
Effects of Changing Work Patterns and Income on Nisga’a Cultural Activities and Practices
Depending on the relative amount of Nisga’a employment with the Project, there will be simultaneous
positive and negative impacts on Nisga’a cultural activities and practices. Nisga’a families will need to
balance the availability of community and family support, cultural obligations and traditional activities, and
employment. Workers will need to balance family and cultural responsibilities, otherwise the work could
strain relations, family cohesion and integrity, and increase mental stress and illness. For the KSM Project
it was noted that the availability to attend community and cultural events (i.e., feasts and ceremonies) was
important, and that the workers diet may change if workers are in camp (Rescan 2012). For the KSM
Project, Nisga’a Elders were concerned that an individual’s high wages may have both positive and
negative outcomes. Positive effects may include the increased ability to harvest traditional resources and
increased self-worth, while negative effects may include high risk behaviour, addiction and substance
abuse (Rescan 2012).
Effects on Nisga’a Language
Over many years, the use of the Nisga’a language has been slowly declining. Reduced education
programs, an aging population of speakers and increased work in English-based labour all contribute to
the decline (Rescan 2012). Table 12-23 provides the language fluencies of Nisga’a Nation (Nisga’a
Heritage Preservation Society and Nisga’a SD 2012). Overall, 77% of Nisga’a have some level of
understanding, approximately 19% are fluent and many members are actively learning the language.
TABLE 12-23
NISGA’A NATION LANGUAGE FLUENCY
Nisga’a
Village
Nisga'a Village
of Gingolx
Nisga'a Village
of Laxgats'ap
Nisga'a Village
of
Gitlaxt'aamiks
Nisga'a Village
of
Gitwinksihlkw
Total
Population
Fluent
Speakers
Understand
or Speak
Somewhat
Learning
Speakers
Total
Speakers
Fluency
Understand/
Somewhat Speak
Learning
Total
Speakers
1,937
375
824
142
1,341
19%
43%
7%
69%
1,679
322
708
128
1,158
19%
42%
8%
69%
1,777
351
855
384
1,590
20%
48%
22%
89%
385
59
185
98
342
15%
48%
25%
89%
5,778
1,107
2,572
752
4,431
19%
45%
13%
77%
In workshops for the KSM Project, Nisga’a Members stated that the project would present a challenge to
the Nisga’a language, especially affecting efforts by the youth to bring it back (Rescan 2012). Similarly,
for the Project, the influx of English-speaking workers and an associated need for English services might
impact the language. The maintenance of the Nisga’a language is an internal Nisga’a matter and the
Page 12-95
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Ayuukhl Nisga’a Department of the NLG has the responsibility of protecting, preserving and promoting
Nisga’a language, culture and history. The Ayuukhl Nisga’a Department collaborates with the Nisga’a
School District 92 Language Department and Wilp Wilxo’oskwl Nisga’a Institute. Table 12-24 presents the
potential effects to the Nisga’a language by the proposed Project.
12.3.2
Potential Effects, Mitigation and Potential Residual Effects
Sections 5.0 to 8.0 provide an assessment of potential effects on Project-related VCs and KIs for various
subject areas. All Nisga’a interests that are outlined in Table 12-24 have been reviewed by the Nisga’a
and are included in the VC and/or KI list for the effects assessment.
Overall, the social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed Project, as they relate to the existing
and future well-being of Nisga’a citizens, are expected to be positive. Table 12-24 below summarizes
positive and negative effects, related mitigation measures or steps that can be taken to enhance positive
effects. This occurs in the context of Nisga’a’s stated interest in economic development, and, in particular,
the development of LNG infrastructure, and within the context of other development occurring in the
region.
The identification of Nisga’a Nation’s present, past and anticipated future uses and traditional use of the
proposed Project area described in Sections 12.1.2.2 and was conducted through literature/desktop
review. The issues identified from these sources also have informed the potential effects of the proposed
Project on Nisga’a Nation’s identified Interests (Section 12.1.2.2). Where potential interactions were likely
to occur, the potential effect is identified in Table 12-24. Table 12-24 also identifies specific geographic
areas compiled from these sources to be important (as available) as well as the measures to avoid,
reduce or mitigate those effects. Where there is overlap between a Nisga’a Nation interest and a VC, the
information from other Sections of the Application are cross-referenced and summarized in Table 12-24.
Based on the information collected to date and presented in Section 12.1.2.2, known interactions of the
proposed Project with Nisga’a Nation’s Interests include crossings of fishing sites at KP 624.5, KPN 734,
KPN 735.5, and throughout Observatory Inlet and Portland Canal, and a sacred site from KP 667.0 and
KP 668.0. At this time, no known trails and travelways, plant gathering sites, trapping sites, habitation
sites, and gathering places occur within 1.9 m of the proposed Project Route. As a result, no identified
potential effects for these Interests have been identified. Should additional interactions on Nisga’a Nation
Interests be identified through ongoing consultation with Nisga’a Nation then the measures to avoid,
reduce or mitigate potential effects will be implemented as outlined in Table 12-24.
TABLE 12-24
ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES RELEVENT TO NFA CHAPTER 10 8(f)
Potential Effects
Location
Increased employment
opportunities
Nass Area
Increased business and
contracting
opportunities
Nass Area
Mitigation Measures
• Implement training programs for Project-specific
employment skills.
• Implement an Aboriginal engagement and contracting
strategy.
• Adhere to the Local and Aboriginal Business and
Employment Strategy.
• Implement an Employment Strategy based on the
existing employment conditions in communities and
the broader region.
• Provide the construction schedule to businesses,
economic development organizations, school districts
and post-secondary institutions.
• Communicate with local Economic Development
Officers regarding employment opportunities.
• Implement a procurement strategy.
• Communicate the construction schedule and
construction activities to local economic development
organizations.
• Communicate Project contracting requirements.
Page 12-96
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
Increased employment
opportunities
N/A
Increased business and
contracting
opportunities
N/A
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Mitigation Measures
Increased future
economic development
Workforce
requirements of the
proposed Project may
exceed supply
Nass Area
• None required.
Nass Area
Displacement of local
workers and distortion
of wage rates
Nass Area
• Implement training programs for Project-specific
employment skills.
• Implement an Aboriginal engagement and contracting
strategy.
• Adhere to the Local and Aboriginal Business and
Employment Strategy.
• Ensure alternative sources of skilled workers are in
place to avoid disruption of the local employment
market.
• Implement an Employment Strategy based on the
existing employment conditions in communities and
the broader region.
• Provide the construction schedule to businesses,
economic development organizations, school districts
and post-secondary institutions.
• Communicate with local Economic Development
Officers regarding employment opportunities.
• No mitigation for this potential effect has been
identified.
Barriers to obtaining
employment for the
local workforce
Nass Area
Disruption of the local
labour force due to the
temporary nature of the
proposed Project
Nass Area
Barriers for local
businesses to obtain
contracts
Nass Area
Impacts on wilderness
character due to
access, clearing and
helicopter overflights
KPK 655.2 to
KPK 669.2
• Collaborate between WCGT, training and
employment agencies, and trade unions.
• Develop training initiatives that take into
consideration local circumstances.
• Implement an Employment Strategy that will work
with existing government funding and service delivery
programs, and partner with training and economic
development organizations.
• Provide training initiatives that do not solely focus on
Project employment and recognize that communities
may benefit from training for positions that provide
services locally.
• During business and employment information
sessions, explain the temporary nature of the
proposed Project to local hires.
• Encourage people to create transferrable skills that
foster long-term work opportunities.
• Meet with local economic development organizations
to discuss post-Project implications of unskilled or
semi-skilled workers.
• Discuss with local communities the need to train
other workers to replace the skilled workers that may
leave the community to work on the proposed
Project.
• Implement a Procurement Strategy.
• Communicate the construction schedule and
construction activities to local economic development
organizations.
• Communicate Project contracting requirements
• Adhere to the Soil Handling Conservation Plan.
• Adhere to the Restoration Plan.
• Maintain a tight construction spread to reduce the
duration of activities and effects.
• Limit the construction width in areas of high
wilderness character, where practical.
• Use existing access roads.
Page 12-97
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
Increased economic
development
Workforce requirements
of the proposed Project
may exceed supply
N/A
Displacement of local
workers and distortion
of wage rates
Potential Adverse
Economic Effects
Assessment
(Section 5.1)
Potential Adverse
Economic Effects
Assessment
(Section 5.1)
Barriers to obtaining
employment for the
local workforce
Potential Adverse
Economic Effects
Assessment
(Section 5.1)
Disruption of the local
labour force due to the
temporary nature of the
proposed Project
Potential Adverse
Economic Effects
Assessment
(Section 5.1)
Barriers for local
businesses to obtain
contracts
Potential Adverse
Economic Effects
Assessment
(Section 5.1)
Impacts on wilderness
character due to
access, clearing and
helicopter overflights
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Physical disturbance to
Nisga’a Memorial Lava
Bed Park
KPN 666.9 to
KPN 668.3
Infringement on
OGMAs
OGMAs crossed by
in Nisga’a Lands
(Table 3.32 from
Appendix 2-Q)
Disruption of access to
outdoor recreational
activities
Areas used for outdoor
recreation
Physical alteration of
visually sensitive areas
KPN 664.1 to
KPN 665.1,
KPN 673.7 to
KPN 677.1, and
KPN 677.0 to
KPN 684.4
Retention and
preservation of VQOs
crossed by the
proposed Project
Marine areas
Infringement on Visual
Quality Objectives
(VQOs)
Disruption of
commercial fishing
activities
Fishing gear loss or
damage during
construction and
operations
Marine areas
Barrier effect on
Dungeness crab
Marine areas
Mitigation Measures
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
• Obtain approval from Nisga’a Nation and BC Parks
• Cross the park using an underground trenchless
method, if feasible.
• Adhere to regulations, standards and permit
conditions established for crossing parks and
protected areas.
• Where practical, avoid crossing OGMAs.
• In areas where an OGMA cannot be avoided,
minimize impacts to old-growth attributes.
• Where an OGMA is crossed and old-growth attributes
are compromised, a replacement OGMA should be
proposed in a different location.
• Communicate with the BC MFLRNO and forest
licensee holders.
• Adhere to the Access Management Plan.
• Construct trail crossings at right angles to trails,
where practical.
• Restrict construction activities to off-seasons or
periods of low use to minimize disruption and
inaccessibility for users.
• Communicate the proposed Project construction
schedule to recreationists by posting signs.
• Minimize right-of-way width in visually sensitive
areas.
• Follow existing linear features where practical.
• Employ visual barriers where warranted.
Physical disturbance to
Nisga’a Memorial Lava
Bed Park
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Infringement on
OGMAs
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of access to
outdoor recreational
activities
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Physical alteration of
visually sensitive areas
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
• Follow existing linear features where practical.
• Employ visual barriers where warranted.
Infringement on VQOs
• Coordinate construction timing with commercial
fishing industry in marine areas that are considered
critical for commercial fisheries.
• Refer to the mitigation measures in Section 4.5 Fish
and Fish Habitat.
• Communicate the Project construction schedule to
DFO, Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA), Canada
Coast Guard (CCG), commercial fishing industry
organizations and other active fisheries.
DFO, PRPA, CCG and commercial fishing industry
organizations.
• Establish a gear loss or damage. compensation
policy in consultation with NLG, DFO, fishing industry
organizations and PRPA.
• Update Canadian Hydrographic Service nautical
charts with the location of the pipeline for use with
marine vessel navigational equipment.
• Identify potential options to facilitate Dungeness crab
movements, if required.
Disruption of
commercial fishing
activities
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Page 12-98
Fishing gear loss or
damage
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Changes to crab
availability for fisheries
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Disruption of timber
harvesting and
silviculture activities
Areas proposed for
forest harvest or
silviculture
Impacts on volume of
merchantable timber
available for harvesting
Areas proposed for
forest harvest or
silviculture
Disruption of NTFP
harvesting
Areas of high NTFP
productivity
Disruption of mining
and mineral exploration
Mines and mineral
tenure areas
Increased spread of
invasive weeds
Nass Area
Proposed Project will
affect future farming
activities
Potential farmland
Disruption of
commercial or informal
Nisga’a hunting guide
outfitters
Guide outfitter areas
Mitigation Measures
• Adhere to the Traffic Plan and Access Management
Plan.
• Ensure appropriate timing of construction activities in
areas of high timber harvesting.
• Notify forestry tenure holders, the BC MFLNRO and
other forestry stakeholders of the proposed Project
• Continue communication throughout the operations
phase with all forestry stakeholders.
• Minimize the volume of merchantable timber
harvested along the right-of-way.
• Notify forestry tenure holders of the proposed Project.
• Continue communication with tenure holders for the
duration of the planning phase.
• Compensate forestry tenure holders.
• Provide merchantable timber harvested on Nisga’a
Lands to the NLG.
schedule to harvesters.
• Identify and avoid areas of high NTFP productivity,
where practical.
• Minimize construction width.
• Employ alternative vegetation management that
encourages NTFP propagation.
• Accommodate the harvest of NTFPs along the
right-of-way before construction.
• Adhere to the Traffic Management Plan.
• Develop access agreements where required.
• Return existing access routes to their former
condition, or better.
• Consideration should be given to minimum setbacks
from blasting related to mining.
• Communicate the Project construction schedule with
mineral tenure holders and other potentially-affected
mining initiatives.
• Limit access to right-of-way by public vehicles.
• Ensure line inspectors clean weed seeds from public
vehicles.
• Implement the Invasive Plant Species Management
Plan.
• Discuss future farm plans with property or tenure
holders.
• Implement appropriate pipeline design and
construction plans.
• Refer to specific mitigation measures provided in the
Project EMP, Section 14.0.
• Reach agreements for demonstrated economic
losses related to construction of the proposed
Project.
• Minimize helicopter overflights in areas of high
importance for guiding activities. Discuss access
needs between potentially-affected parties.
• Communicate the Project construction schedule and
routing with licensee holders and registered guide
outfitters.
Page 12-99
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
Disruption of timber
harvesting and
silviculture activities
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Impacts on volume of
merchantable timber
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of NTFP
production and
harvesting
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of mining
and mineral exploration
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Increased spread of
invasive weeds
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
No residual effect has
been identified
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of hunting
guide outfitters
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Disruption of trapping
activities
Trap line areas
Disruption to
commercial freshwater
and land-based tourism
activities
Areas of freshwater
and land-based
tourism activities
Disruption to
commercial marine
tourism activities
Marine areas
Disruption to
hydropower, wind
power and oil and gas
tenures
Energy production and
transmission tenures
Disturbance to
residences, cabins and
other human-occupied
areas outside of
communities
Nass Area
Inconsistencies with
land and marine use
plans
Nass Area
Altered social condition
of communities due to
demographic and
population changes
Impacts on availability
of temporary
accommodation
Nisga’a Villages
Nisga’a Villages
Mitigation Measures
• Develop agreements where required for
demonstrated economic losses related to the
proposed Project.
• Communicate Project construction schedule and
routing with registered trap line holders.
proposed Project.
• Communicate Project construction schedule and
routing with registered trap line holders.
• Adhere to the Marine Management Plan.
• Restrict construction activities during peak tourism
seasons.
• Communicate the Project construction schedule and
routing with tourism operators.
• Coordinate construction timing with tourism operators
to avoid high-use seasons, where practical.
proposed Project.
• Communicate the proposed Project schedule with
tenure holders.
• Proximity and crossing agreements will be in place
prior to construction.
• Apply accepted construction practices and adjust
cathodic protection when warranted.
• Minimize the width of the right-of-way near inhabited
areas.
• Refer to mitigation measures for guide outfitting,
trapping, outdoor recreation and agriculture.
• Communicate Project construction schedule with
local residents.
• Adhere to the guidelines and regulations described in
relevant land and marine use plans.
• If plan amendments are deemed necessary,
engagement with the organization that prepared the
plan will occur to discuss an appropriate resolution.
• Ensure that workers are trained in and adhere to the
code of conduct.
community representatives.
• Provide temporary construction camp
accommodations for workers.
• Communicate accommodation needs and the
proposed construction schedule to the NLG,
community representatives and Nisga’a business
operators.
Page 12-100
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
activities
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption to
commercial freshwater
and land-based tourism
activities
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption to
commercial marine
tourism activities
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
No potential residual
effect has been
identified
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disturbance to
residences, cabins and
other human-occupied
areas outside of
communities
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
effect has been
identified
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Altered social condition
of communities due to
demographic and
population changes
Impacts on availability
of temporary
accommodation
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Increased rent levels
Nisga’a Villages
Increased permanent
housing costs
Nisga’a Villages
Increased demand on
hospitals, police, fire,
ambulance and medical
evacuation services
Nisga’a Villages
Increased demand on
existing health care
services
Nisga’a Villages
Increased demand on
social services
Nisga’a Villages
Altered campgrounds,
recreation sites, trails
and boat launches
Nass Area
Impacts on access to
community recreation
facilities
Nisga’a Villages
Altered telephone and
internet services
Nass Area
Increased demand on
potable water in
communities
Nisga’a Villages
Altered surface water
infrastructure
Gitzyon Community
Watershed
Mitigation Measures
• Communicate with community representatives to
assess rental accommodations for Project
management and other support staff.
• Communicate with community representatives to
assess permanent housing availability for Project
management and other support staff.
• Adhere to the Emergency Response Plan.
• Adhere to Worksafe BC standards on work sites.
• Ensure approved safety and medical personnel are
present in work camps and on construction sites.
• Provide contact numbers, Project maps with access
to RCMP, fire departments, ambulance service
providers, and search and rescue to key Project
personnel.
local emergency service providers.
• Implement the proposed mitigation measures
outlined in Section 9.0 Accidents and Malfunctions
Assessment.
present in temporary construction camps and on
construction sites.
• Continue to communicate the proposed construction
schedule to local and regional health care service
providers.
trained in mental health and substance abuse
concerns are present in temporary construction
camps and on construction sites.
• Communicate the proposed construction schedule to
local representatives to determine potential capacity
issues regarding social services.
• Adhere to the AMP and Restoration Plan.
the BC MFLNRO District Recreation Officer.
community representatives and recreational facility
operators.
• Provide access to recreational facilities in work
camps.
• Provide satellite phones, where warranted.
• Communicate the proposed Project schedule to local
communities, RCMP and other emergency providers,
as well as other radio frequency users of the
• Notify the BC MFLNRO of communications methods
and radio frequencies required for the proposed
Project construction.
• Install groundwater wells specifically to supply
domestic water in work camps.
• Communicate the proposed construction schedule
with local and regional representatives regarding
domestic water requirements.
• Provide water if surface water sources or
infrastructure are affected.
• Use a trenchless crossing method, where feasible, at
Gitzyon Creek and Ksi Sii Aks (Tseax River), which
supply the Gitzyon Community Watershed.
Page 12-101
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Increased permanent
housing costs
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Increased demand on
hospitals, police, fire,
ambulance and medical
evacuation services
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Increased demand on
existing health care
services
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Increased demand on
social services
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Altered recreation areas
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
effect has been
identified
effect has been
identified
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Increased demand on
potable water in
communities
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
effect has been
identified
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Altered groundwater
infrastructure
Groundwater wells
Increased pressure on
local and regional
government staff and
resources
Increased demand on
municipal and regional
solid and liquid waste
infrastructure
NLG and Village
government offices
Disruption of marine
navigability during
construction
Marine areas
Disruption of freshwater
navigability
Navigable watercourse
crossings
Impacts on quality of
road surfaces
Roads and highways
Increased traffic
volumes on roads and
highways
Roads and highways
Transportation of
dangerous goods
Roads and highways
Nass Area
Mitigation Measures
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
• Provide groundwater wells replacement or otherwise
supply water if infrastructure is affected.
landowners.
• Communicate the proposed construction schedule in
advance to understand capacity and resource issues.
effect has been
identified
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
effect has been
identified
• Adhere to the Waste Management Plan and relevant
legislation.
• Transport and dispose of all waste, including
hazardous waste, in accordance with provincial and
federal regulatory requirements as well as local
guidelines.
waste management operators.
• Adhere to the Marine EMP.
• Implement mitigation measures outlined in the
Section 9.0 Accidents and Malfunctions Assessment.
• Request Canadian Hydrographic Services Pacific to
issue a Notice to Mariners during major marine
• Notify Aboriginal communities, DFO, Transport
Canada, the CCG, BC Ferries, commercial charter
and tour operators, fishing industry organizations,
municipalities, and other stakeholders of the pipeline
routing and construction schedule prior to marine
construction.
• Notify Aboriginal communities, landowners, land
authorities, DFO, Transport Canada, municipalities
and other stakeholders of the pipeline routing and
construction schedule prior to construction.
• Implement mitigation measures outlined in the
Section 9.0 Accidents and Malfunctions Assessment.
• Communicate pipeline construction schedule with
Aboriginal communities.
• Notify recreational boaters of the hazards associated
with marine construction.
• Adhere to the AMP and the Traffic Management Plan.
• Adhere to traffic, road use and safety laws, and abide
by provincial and local speed limits.
• Negotiate road maintenance agreements with the
appropriate local authorities.
• Install signs notifying of construction activities.
schedule with BC MOTI, BC MFLNRO and
potentially-affected communities.
• Adhere to traffic, road use and safety laws, and abide
by provincial and local speed limits.
• Install signs notifying road users of construction
activities.
schedule with BC MOTI, BC MFLNRO and
potentially-affected communities.
• Adhere to the applicable federal, provincial and
municipal legislation.
• Workers and transporters will be trained in
accordance with the applicable regulator and the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
Increased demand on
municipal and regional
infrastructure
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Page 12-102
Disruption of marine
navigability during
construction
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of freshwater
navigability
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
road surfaces
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Increased traffic
volumes on roads and
highways
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
effect has been
identified
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Increased access to
previously unroaded
areas
Location
Unroaded areas
Disturbance of
contaminated soil
Nass Area
Disturbance of
potentially
contaminated marine
sediments
Alice Arm
country foods due to
herbicide application
during operations
country foods due to
petroleum leaks and
spills during
construction
Altered quantity of
productive harvesting
sites
Nass Area
Impacts to availability of
wildlife for consumption
Nass Area
Increased noise levels
during construction
Nass Area
Increased noise levels
during operation
K5 Compressor
Station (Nasoga Gulf)
Mitigation Measures
• Use existing roads where practical.
• Deactivate temporary access roads and shoo-flies
unless required for operations, ground inspections,
maintenance or emergency response.
• Upgrade existing roads and trails, where warranted,
for safe and practical passage of construction traffic.
• Install fences and other barriers.
• Install signs notifying potential user groups that
access may be restricted.
• Identify if contaminants are present.
• Reduce disturbance of potentially contaminated soils.
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
Increased access to
previously unroaded
areas
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
effect has been
identified
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
• Identify if contaminants are present on the Project
Footprint.
• Reduce disturbance of potentially contaminated
sediments.
• Prohibit the use of herbicides in areas of known
edible plant harvesting.
• Erect signage if edible vegetation has been affected.
Disturbance of
potentially
contaminated marine
sediments
Nass Area
• Completely contain the spill and remediate the site.
• Erect signage if edible vegetation has been affected.
effect has been
identified
Nass Area
• Implement a Soil Handling and Conservation
Management Plan.
• Implement a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan.
• Implement a Restoration Plan Framework.
• Narrow the width of clearing at site-specific features.
• Implement a Restoration Plan Framework.
• Possession of firearms or hunting by Project work
crews will be strictly controlled.
effect has been
identified
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
effect has been
identified
• Adhere to local and regional government bylaws and
regulations.
• Adhere to EHS policies.
• Restrict construction activities to daytime hours, to
the extent practical.
• Employ noise control methods such as muffler
systems and buffers.
schedule with local representatives, residents and
communities.
• Adhere here to local and regional government bylaws
and regulations.
• Adhere to EHS policies.
• Adhere to the BC OGC Noise Control Best Practice
Guidelines.
• Implement noise level guides for turbines, coolers,
exhaust and the building to ensure that noise emitted
from the compressor stations meets appropriate
standards.
• Communicate the proposed compressor station plans
with local representatives, residents and
communities.
effect has been
identified
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
Page 12-103
effect has been
identified
effect has been
identified
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Impacts on respiratory
health during
construction
Nass Area
health during operation
K5 Compressor
Station
Impacts to drinking
water quality
Gitlax’taamiks
Impacts to recreational
water quality
Nass River, and
various other streams,
rivers and lakes
Altered public safety
and security due to a
sudden increase in
population
Nass Area
Mitigation Measures
• Reduce emissions associated with vehicle idling,
improperly maintained vehicles and non-optimized
construction equipment.
• Use multi-passenger vehicles to transport crews to
the site to minimize vehicle emissions.
• Apply dust suppressants (e.g., road watering).
• Reduce emissions associated with non-merchantable
timber burning, in accordance with burning permits.
• Adhere to the Open Burning Smoke Control
Regulations.
• Monitor and communicate the ambient air quality.
• Monitor surface and groundwater during construction
activities where warranted.
• Treatment to remove/reduce the levels of dissolved
chemicals or suspended solids where warranted.
• Provide well replacement or otherwise provide
potable water to residents if quality and quantity has
been altered.
• Monitor water crossings using a quantitative turbidity
meter where warranted.
• Dispose of water used for hydrostatic testing in its
originating watershed.
domestic water users.
• Water crossings will, where warranted, be monitored
during construction using a turbidity meter.
• During worker and contractor orientation sessions,
reinforce the importance of respectful conduct while
in communities.
RCMP and community representatives.
• Communicate the code of conduct to all workers.
Page 12-104
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
health during
construction
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
effect has been
identified
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
effect has been
identified
effect has been
identified
Potential Health
Effects
Assessment
(Section 8.1)
Increased crime rates
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Location
Mitigation Measures
Disruption of hunting
activities
Potential Effects
Nass Area (hunting
activities are known to
occur in the RSA and
within the Nass
Wildlife Area, No
hunting sites are
known to be crossed
by the proposed
Project Route,
however site specific
data on hunting sites
has not been provided
by Nisga’a Nation)
Alteration of hunting
sites
Nass Area (No hunting
sites are known to be
crossed by the
proposed Project
Route, however site
specific data on
hunting sites has not
been provided by
Nisga’a Nation)
activities
Nass Area (trapping
activities are known to
within the Nass
Wildlife Area, No
trapping sites are
known to be crossed
by the proposed
Project Route,
however site specific
data on trapping sites
has not been provided
by Nisga’a Nation)
• Notify representatives of Nisga’a Nation of work
locations and construction schedules a minimum of
14 days prior to the commencement of construction.
• Use existing clearings (i.e., shared workspace) to
reduce the amount of new clearing and land
disturbance necessary.
• Use existing access, to the extent practical.
• All work site personnel will be oriented on the proper
response to wildlife encounters. No hunting will be
allowed by Project construction personnel on or near
the proposed Project site during working hours, or
while they are staying in Project funded
accommodations. No firearms are permitted on work
sites unless approved for use by qualified individuals
for the purpose of protecting workers from wildlife
under specified conditions.
• Implement applicable mitigation measures listed
above during maintenance activities (e.g., integrity
digs).
• Implement the AMP including access control
measures (e.g., signage, road closures, restrictions,
access control structures, vegetation screens) to
reduce unauthorized motorized access.
• Complete pre-construction discussions with Nisga’a
Nation where necessary to identify hunting sites that
warrant mitigation. Mitigation may include one or
more of the following measures:
−
adhering to species-specific timing constraints;
−
leaving breaks in the pipeline trench to allow
animals to cross;
−
limiting the use of chemical applications; and
−
alternative site-specific mitigation strategies
recommended by Nisga’a Nation.
• Implement mitigation measures outlined under the
assessments of Atmospheric Environment, Marine
Ecosystems, Fish, Vegetation, Wetlands and Wildlife
(Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 of the
Application, respectively).
digs).
• Implement the EMP, AMP, Restoration Plan and
Waste Management Plan to reduce the potential
effects on subsistence hunting activities and wildlife
habitat.
• Notify representatives of Nisga’a Nation and
registered trappers of work locations as well as
construction schedules a minimum of 14 days prior to
the commencement of construction.
• Prohibit the vandalism or theft of trapper equipment
or trapped animals by Project workers. Report all
violators to BC MFLRNO’s Fish and Wildlife Branch.
digs).
• Implement the AMP, including access control
access control structures, vegetation screens), to
Page 12-105
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
Disruption of
subsistence activities
during construction and
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Alteration of
subsistence resources
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Location
Mitigation Measures
Disruption of fishing
activities
Potential Effects
Marine areas and
watercourse
crossings(subsistence
fishing activities are
known to occur within
the RSA. Known
fishing sites occur at
KPN 734, KPN 735.5,
KP 624.5 and
throughout Portland
Canal and
Observatory Inlet).
• Notify representatives of Aboriginal communities of
work locations and construction schedules a
minimum of 14 days prior to the commencement of
construction.
• Prohibit recreational fishing by Project personnel on
or in the vicinity of the construction right-of-way,
access roads, permanent facility sites, work camps
and ancillary sites during construction. The use of the
construction right-of-way or access roads by Project
personnel while working on the Project to access
fishing sites is prohibited. Note that this provision
does not apply to locally employed workers during
non-work hours and when they are not receiving
accommodation assistance from the Project.
digs).
Alteration of fishing
sites
Marine areas and
watercourse crossings
(known fishing sites
occur at KPN 734,
KPN 735.5, KP 624.5
and throughout
Portland Canal and
Observatory Inlet).
Disruption of plant
gathering activities
Nass Area
(subsistence plant
gathering activities are
the RS and throughout
the Nass Wildlife Area.
No known plant
harvesting areas occur
within 7.3 km of the
proposed Project
Route)
Nation where necessary to identify fishing sites that
warrant mitigation. Mitigation may include one or
−
recording and mapping of fishing locales;
−
adherence to the regulations, standards and
guidelines set by provincial and federal
regulatory agencies for watercourse crossings;
and
−
alternative, site-specific mitigation strategies
assessments of Marine Ecosystems, Fish and
Wetlands (Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.7 of the
Application, respectively).
digs).
• Implement the EMP, AMP, Restoration Plan and
Waste Management Plan to reduce the potential
effects on subsistence fishing activities and the
aquatic environment.
construction.
digs).
Page 12-106
Potential Residual
Effects
Disruption of
(principally during
construction)
Effects
Assessment
Section
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Alteration of
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Location
Mitigation Measures
Alteration of plant
gathering sites
Potential Effects
Nass Area.(No known
plant harvesting areas
occur within 7.3 km of
Route)
Disruption of use of
trails and travelways
Nass Area
(trails and travelway
use is known to occur
in the RSA. No known
trails are known to
occur closer than
1.9 km from the
proposed Project
Route).
Nation where necessary to identify plant gathering
sites that warrant mitigation. Mitigation may include
one or more of the following measures:
−
limiting the use of chemical applications;
−
replacement of plant species during
reclamation;
−
avoidance of the site; and
−
• All construction equipment must be clean and free of
soil or vegetative debris prior to its arrival on the
construction site to reduce the risk of weed
introduction. Any equipment arriving in a dirty
condition will not be allowed on the work site until it
has been cleaned off at a suitable location.
assessment of Marine Ecosystems, Vegetation and
Wetlands (Sections 4.1, 4.6 and 4.7, respectively).
digs).
• Implement EMP, AMP, Restoration and Waste
Management Plans to reduce the potential effects on
subsistence plant gathering activities, wetlands and
vegetation.
construction.
Nation where necessary to identify trails and
travelways that warrant mitigation. Mitigation may
include one or more of the following measures:
−
detailed recording and mapping within 100 m
on both sides of the pipeline right-of-way. In
partnership with community representatives, a
decision is then made about the relative
importance of the trail and, if warranted, how
best to maintain and control access;
−
other mitigation options, include signage or
scheduling construction during periods of least
affect; and
−
• All motorized vehicle traffic, including ATV traffic, will
be confined to approved right-of-way, access roads
or trails, except where specifically authorized by the
appropriate authority.
assessment of the transportation and access related
to marine and freshwater navigability and marine
safety.
digs).
Page 12-107
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
Alteration of
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of trail and
travelway use during
construction and
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Disruption of use of
trails and travelways
(cont’d)
See above.
Impacts on use of
habitation sites
Habitation sites
identified in
Section 12.1.2.2
(habitation sites are
known to occur in the
RSA and within the
Nass Wildlife Area, no
habitation sites are
2.2 km of the
proposed Project
Route)
Disturbance of
gathering places
Nass Area (gathering
places are known to
within the Nass
Wildlife Area, no
habitation sites are
3.25 km of the
proposed Project
Route)
Mitigation Measures
Nation where necessary to identify habitation sites
that warrant mitigation. Mitigation may include one or
−
detailed mapping, photographic recording and
avoidance of the location by the proposed
development;
−
should avoidance of a site not be practical,
mitigative measures consisting of detailed
recording and controlled excavations may be
implemented; and
−
alternative site-specific mitigation strategies
or trails except where specifically authorized by the
digs).
Nation where necessary to identify gathering places
−
detailed recording, mapping and avoidance;
−
assess visual impact; and
−
assessment of the Atmospheric Environment
(Section 4.1).
Page 12-108
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
See above
See above
Disruption of habitation
site use during
construction and
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disturbance of
gathering places during
construction and
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-24 Cont'd
Potential Effects
Location
Disturbance of
gathering places
(cont’d)
Disturbance of areas
identified as being of
sacred value
See above.
Disruption of traditional
language
Nass Area
12.3.3
Nass Area (areas
sacred value are
known to occur in the
RSA and within the
Nass Wildlife Area, a
known sacred site
(lava beds) is crossed
from KP 667.0 to
KP 668.0).
Mitigation Measures
digs).
Nation where necessary to identify areas of sacred
value that warrant mitigation. Mitigation may include
one or more of the following measures:
−
detailed recording, mapping and avoidance;
−
assess visual impact;
−
additional mitigation measures will be refined
and optimized through community discussions;
and
−
assessment of the Atmospheric Environment
(Section 4.1).
• Implement appropriate measures identified in the
TLU Sites Discovery Contingency Plan in the event of
discovery of areas of sacred value during
• Implement appropriate measures identified in the
Heritage Resource Discovery Contingency Plan.
digs).
Nation where necessary to identify language impacts
−
WCGT will implement Nisga’a place names on
proposed Project material to maintain
consistency for Nisga’a reviewers and
stakeholders;
−
Use bilingual signs on Nisga’a Lands and
include Nisga’a place names;
−
additional mitigation measures will be refined
and optimized through community discussions;
and
−
Potential Residual
Effects
Effects
Assessment
Section
See above
See above
Disturbance of areas
sacred value during
construction and
operations
Potential Social
Effects
Assessment
(Section 6.1)
Disruption of traditional
language
Nisga’a Nation
Issues, Concerns,
Resolutions.
(Section 12.2.4.4);
Potential Cultural
Effects
(Section 12.4.2.3)
Assessment of Potential Residual Effects
Potential residual economic, social and cultural effects of the proposed Project on Nisga’a interests are
provided in Table 12-24. A qualitative approach was used to assess each potential residual effect and
Page 12-109
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
included the criterion of duration, frequency, reversibility, magnitude, probability and confidence
(Table 12-25). Refer to Section 3.0 for definitions of each criterion.
TABLE 12-25
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON THE EXISTING
AND FUTURE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELL-BEING OF NISGA’A CITIZENS
Residual Effect
Economic
Increased employment opportunities
Criteria Rating
Duration: Short -term
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Increased business opportunities
Duration: Short-Term
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Increased future economic development
Duration: Long-term
Magnitude: N/A
Probability: High
Page 12-110
The activities associated with the installation of
the pipeline and facilities that will lead to
substantive increases in employment
opportunities will be completed in the
construction phase with the exception of a small
number of opportunities during operations
(e.g., right-of-way maintenance).
Increases in employment opportunities due to
the proposed Project will largely be confined to
The increase in employment opportunities will
largely occur during the construction phase.
The increase in employment opportunities will
result in a moderate modification of the economic
environment.
It is likely that the proposed Project will lead to
increased employment opportunities for Nisga’a
citizens.
The confidence is considered high based on a
the pipeline and facilities that will lead to
substantive increases in business opportunities
will be completed in the construction phase.
Increases in business opportunities due to the
proposed Project will largely be confined to the
construction phase.
Increased business opportunities will largely
The increase in business opportunities will result
in a moderate modification of the economic
environment.
increased business opportunities for Nisga’a
citizens.
Nisga’a Nation taxation revenues generated by
the proposed Project will extend throughout the
operations phase and contribute to increased
future economic development.
Increased future economic development has the
potential to occur continually throughout the
operations phase.
Increased Nisga’a Nation revenues and the
resulting potential for increased future economic
development will extend during the operations
phase.
The increase in future economic development
has the potential to result in the moderate
modification of the Nisga’a Nation economy.
increased future economic development if longterm planning is considered.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-25 Cont’d
Residual Effect
Criteria Rating
Increased future economic development (cont’d)
Workforce requirements of the proposed Project
may exceed supply
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Displacement of local workers and distortion of
wage rates
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Confidence: Low
Barriers to obtaining employment for the local
workforce
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Page 12-111
The confidence is considered moderate due to
the challenges in predicting how Project-related
revenues will be distributed by the Nisga’a
Nation.
All activities associated with the installation of
the pipeline and facilities that will lead to a
skilled labour force shortage will be completed in
Labour force requirements of the proposed
Project that exceed supply will be confined to the
construction phase of the proposed Project
The shortage of skilled labour will be limited to
the construction phase of the proposed Project.
A detectable change and moderate modification
of the economic environment will result from
skilled labour force shortages during
construction of the proposed Project.
It is likely that the workforce demands of the
proposed Project will exceed availability.
using data pertinent to the proposed Project
area.
the pipeline and facilities that may lead to
distortion of local wage patterns will be
completed in the construction phase.
Activities requiring substantial numbers of
employees would only occur during the
construction phase of the proposed Project.
Potentially distorted wage rates will occur during
wage pattern distortion during construction of the
proposed Project.
It is moderately likely that the proposed Project
will lead to distorted local wage patterns.
The confidence is considered low based on an
incomplete understanding of cause-effect
relationships.
the pipeline and facilities that may affect
employment for the local labour force will be
Activities that will provide employment
opportunities will be limited to the construction
phase of the proposed Project.
Most employment opportunities available to the
local workforce will be related to construction of
the proposed Project and the potential residual
effect will extend over this period.
obstacles to obtaining employment.
It is likely that local people will experience
barriers to obtaining employment in the Project
workforce.
The confidence is considered moderate based
on a good understanding of cause-effect
relationships and data pertinent to the proposed
Project area.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Barriers for local businesses to obtain contracts
Criteria Rating
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Impacts on wilderness character due to access,
clearing and helicopter overflights
Frequency: Isolated to Occasional
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Infringement on OGMAs
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Disruption of access to outdoor recreational
activities
Frequency: Isolated
Page 12-112
the pipeline and facilities that may affect local
businesses will be completed in the construction
phase.
would be limited to the construction phase of the
proposed Project.
The potential residual effect is expected to only
Obstacles to obtaining contracts may result in a
moderate modification of the economic
environment.
It is likely that the local businesses will
experience barriers to obtaining contracts.
on an incomplete understanding of cause-effect
relationships using data pertinent to the
proposed Project area.
The initial reduction in wilderness character will
occur during construction of the proposed
Project, although intermittent operational
activities may occur that would be completed in
a period of less than 1 year.
Disturbance to wilderness areas will generally be
confined to the construction phase, although
operations could result in limited disturbance in
the future.
The presence of the cleared right-of-way will
reduce wilderness character throughout the
operations phase.
Project effects on wilderness character will result
in a detectable change and result in the
moderate modification of the social and
economic environment.
It is likely that the proposed Project will result in
diminished wilderness character.
on a moderate level of confidence due to the
challenge in defining wilderness and predicting
potential effects on wilderness character.
Activities associated with the installation of the
pipeline and facilities that may infringe on
OGMAs will be limited to the construction phase.
Clearing of overstory species in OGMAs will be
confined to the construction phase.
The effects on OGMAs will extend throughout
the operations phase.
The infringement upon OMGAs will result in a
detectable change and result in a moderate
modification of the social and economic
environment.
Based on the current routing, it is likely that the
proposed Project will infringe upon OGMAs.
The confidence is moderate based on a good
understanding of cause-effect relationships and
data pertinent to the proposed Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may restrict access
due to the proposed Project is limited to the
construction phase.
Restricted access to outdoor recreational
activities will be limited to the construction
phase.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Disruption of access to outdoor recreational
activities (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Medium
Physical alteration of visually sensitive areas
Probability: High
Frequency: Isolated
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Page 12-113
Access to outdoor recreational activities will be
restored following the construction phase.
Disrupted access to outdoor recreation will result
in a detectable change but will have a negligible
effect on the social and economic environment
beyond an inconvenience or nuisance.
The disruption of access to hunting, angling and
other outdoor recreation activities is moderately
likely to occur.
relationships although the intermittent nature of
potential access restrictions makes it difficult to
predict the effects on outdoor recreation.
pipeline and facilities that may alter visually
sensitive areas will be completed in the
construction phase, however, lighting needed for
compressor stations will persist throughout the
operations phase.
Project activities that may alter the visually
sensitive areas will occur throughout the
assessment period.
Areas cleared of trees for the proposed pipeline
right-of-way will need to be maintained as such
throughout the operations phase. The presence
of compressor stations and associated lighting
will also endure for the life of the proposed
project.
Visual alterations of the landscape will result in a
detectable change and will have a minimal to
moderate effect on the social environment.
Visual alterations of the landscape due to the
proposed Project are likely to occur.
on an incomplete understanding of cause-effect
relationships of visual sensitivity.
pipeline and facilities that may lead to the
alteration of the VQO areas (Preservation and
Retention) will primarily occur during the
construction phase.
Alterations of the VQO areas (Preservation and
Retention) will occur primarily during the
construction phase.
Areas cleared of trees for the proposed pipeline
right-of-way and facilities will need to be
maintained as cleared areas throughout the
operations phase.
Alterations of the VQO areas (Preservation and
Retention) will result in a detectable change and
will have a minimal to moderate effect on the
social and economic environment.
Alteration of the VQO areas due to the proposed
Project is likely to occur.
The confidence is considered high based on an
relationships of clearing trees in the VQO areas,
especially since the VQO system pertains to the
forestry sector and not the oil and gas sector.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Disruption of commercial fishing activities
Criteria Rating
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Confidence: High
Fishing gear loss or damage during construction
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Fishing gear loss or damage during operations
Duration: Long-term
Reversibility: Long-term to Permanent
Magnitude: Low
Page 12-114
The potential disruption to commercial fishing
activities due to the proposed Project is
expected to occur only in the construction
phase.
The event pertains to the construction period of
the marine pipeline.
The potential disruption to commercial fishing
activities pertains to the construction period of
the marine pipeline. Fishing activity can be
resumed when pipeline construction vessels
depart a particular area.
In the event that construction activities displace
the activities of commercial fishers, there may be
associated financial losses which constitute a
medium magnitude.
a disruption of commercial fishing activity during
construction.
The potential damage to fishing gear due to the
proposed Project is expected to only occur in the
construction phase.
the marine pipeline
The potential damage to fishing gear from
interactions with marine pipe-lay activities
pertains to the construction period of the marine
pipeline and the compensation process that will
be in place.
In the event that construction activities cause
damage to fishing gear, there may be associated
financial losses. If gear entanglement occurs, a
process will be in place for financial
compensation and the magnitude of the residual
effect is expected to be low.
Communications with fishers about construction
timing in specific areas is expected to mitigate
the potential for fishing gear damage or loss;
therefore, the residual effect is considered to be
unlikely.
The potential effect pertains to the presence of
the pipe during the operations phase.
The pipelines will be present throughout the
assessment period.
The potential damage to fishing gear from
becoming entangled with the marine pipeline
pertains to the operations period of the proposed
Project has the potential to extend into the
decommissioning phase due to the permanent
presence of the pipe.
In the event that the pipeline causes damage to
or loss of fishing gear, there may be associated
financial losses, however, if gear entanglement
occurs, a process will be in place for financial
compensation and the residual effect is
expected to be low.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
(cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Probability: Low
Confidence: High
Changes to crab availability for fishery
Duration: Long-term
Reversibility: Long-term to Permanent
Probability: Low to Medium
Disruption of timber harvesting and silviculture
activities
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Short to Long-term
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Impacts on volume of merchantable timber
Frequency: Isolated
Page 12-115
Communications with fishers about the location
of the pipeline is expected to mitigate the
potential for fishing gear damage or loss,
therefore, the residual effect is considered to be
unlikely.
The potential effect pertains to the operations
phase.
The event pertains to the operations period of
The potential for a change in the availability of
Dungeness crab for the commercial fishery due
to the pipeline acting as a barrier has the
potential to persist into the decommissioning
phase.
In the event that the barrier effect of the pipeline
results in a change in the availability of
Dungeness crab for the commercial fishery,
there may be associated financial losses,
however, if the pipe is sufficiently buried in key
areas to allow for passage of crabs the residual
effect is expected to be negligible.
Dungeness crabs are widely distributed in
Chatham Sound; however, the probability of the
residual effect depends on the extent of
onshore-offshore movement of crabs.
on a medium understanding of cause-effect
relationships and data from other areas.
The disruption to timber harvesting, silviculture
and forest planning will typically be limited to the
construction phase.
pipeline and facilities that have the potential to
disrupt forestry operations will primarily occur
Direct effects on timber harvesting and
silviculture activities will typically be limited to the
construction phase, however, increased forest
planning costs for tenure holders will extend
throughout the operations phase of the proposed
Project.
The potential disruption to forestry activities
could lead to a moderate modification of the
Access restrictions to existing forestry
operations are moderately likely to occur.
relationships, however, it is difficult to predict the
level to which the proposed Project will forestry
operations on Nisga’a Lands.
pipeline and facilities that may lead to reduced
timber supply will primarily occur during the
construction phase.
The clearing activities resulting in reduced
merchantable timber will occur during the
construction phase.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Impacts on volume of merchantable timber
available for harvesting (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
The effect of reduced merchantable timber will
extend throughout the operations phase
although compensation will largely account for
any associated economic losses.
The potential change will be detectable and
result in a low to moderate modification of the
Right-of-way clearing is likely to result in
reduced merchantable timber volumes.
pipeline and facilities that may disrupt NTFP
harvesting will primarily occur during the
construction phase.
The proposed Project activities that could affect
NTFPs will primarily occur during the
construction phase.
Potential adverse effects on some NTFPs are
likely to extend throughout the operations phase.
The change in production and harvest of NTFPs
will be detectable but will have no effect on the
social or economic environment beyond that of
an inconvenience or nuisance.
Project construction is moderately likely to affect
NTFPs.
The confidence is considered low based on an
relationships and incomplete data pertinent to
the proposed Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may disrupt mining
activities will primarily occur during the
construction phase.
Right-of-way clearing and pipe installation that
may disrupt mining and mineral exploration will
Limitations on the development of known and
potential mineral deposits will not be reversible
until the decommissioning phase.
The change will be detectable and result in a
Limits on the development of mineral deposits is
moderately likely to occur.
The confidence is moderate based on a good
although there is an inherent challenge in
predicting where potential mineral exploration
tenures are likely to be developed.
Proposed Project activities that may spread
weeds will largely occur during the construction
phase although through the creation of a new
right-of-way during the construction phase other
vehicles including privately-owned ATVs will
likely spread weeds during the operations
phase.
The potential for the spread of weeds will persist
throughout the assessment period.
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Disruption of NTFP production and harvesting
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Medium
Confidence: Low
Disruption of mining and mineral exploration
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Increased spread of invasive weeds
Duration: Short to Long-term
Page 12-116
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Increased spread of invasive weeds (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Confidence: High
Disruption of hunting guide outfitters
Frequency: Isolated
Probability: Medium
Disruption of trapping activities
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Medium
Disruption to commercial freshwater and
land-based tourism activities
Frequency: Isolated
Page 12-117
The spread of weeds will extend throughout the
operations phase.
The change will be detectable and result in the
The spread of weeds during proposed Project
construction is moderately likely to occur.
The confidence is high based on a good
although uncertainty remains regarding the
potential effect on range land use and
productivity.
pipeline and facilities that may disrupt guide
outfitters will primarily occur during the
construction phase.
Proposed Project-related activities that may lead
to the disruption of guide outfitters will occur
Disruption to guide outfitting activities regarding
potentially adverse effects of increased access
may extend throughout the operations phase.
The disruption to guide outfitting activities will
result in the moderate modification of the social
and economic environment although the
beneficial effects of increased access may offset
some of the adverse effects.
The disruption of guide outfitting activities is
relationships from data outside the proposed
Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may disrupt trapping
activities will primarily occur during the
construction phase.
Project activities that may disrupt trapping
activities will occur during the construction
phase.
The potential disruption of trapping activities
may extend into the operations phase due to
adverse effects regarding increased access.
The disruption of trapping activities will result in
no modification of the social and economic
environment beyond that of a nuisance or
inconvenience.
The disruption of trapping activities is
The confidences is considered moderate based
Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may disrupt freshwater
and land-based tourism will primarily occur
Proposed Project-related activities that may
disrupt freshwater and land-based tourism will
The potential disruption of freshwater and landbased tourism will occur during the construction
phase.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Disruption to commercial freshwater and landbased tourism activities (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Probability: Medium
Disruption to commercial marine tourism
activities
Frequency: Isolated
Probability: Medium
Social
Disturbance to residences, cabins and other
human-occupied areas outside of communities
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Medium
Impacts on availability of temporary
accommodation
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Page 12-118
The disruption to tourism activities will result in a
low to moderate modification of the social and
The disruption of freshwater and land-based
tourism is moderately likely to occur.
Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may disrupt marine
tourism will primarily occur during the
construction phase.
disrupt marine tourism will occur during the
construction phase.
The potential disruption of marine tourism will
The disruption of marine tourism activities will
result in a low to moderate modification of the
The disruption of marine tourism is moderately
likely to occur.
Project area.
The initial clearing and pipeline installation that
may disturb areas of human habitation will occur
affect human-occupied areas outside of Nisga’a
Villages will occur during the construction phase.
The potential disturbance to residences, cabins
and other human-occupied areas will likely
extend throughout the assessment period due to
the presence of the compressor stations.
The disruption to areas of human habitation will
result in a detectable change but have no effect
on the social environment beyond that of an
inconvenience or nuisance.
It is moderately likely that proposed Project
activities will disturb human-occupied areas.
Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may lead to an
increased demand on temporary
accommodation will be completed in the
construction phase.
The need for temporary accommodation due to
the proposed Project will largely be confined to
The reduced availability of temporary
accommodation due to the needs of the
proposed Project will be resolved when the
construction phase ends.
The reduced availability of temporary
accommodation will result in a detectable
change and a moderate modification in the
social environment.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Impacts on availability of temporary
accommodation (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Medium-term
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Increased permanent housing costs
Frequency: Isolated
the pipeline and facilities that may lead to an
increase in rent levels will be completed in the
construction phase.
Increased rent levels due to the proposed
Project will largely be confined to the
construction phase.
Increased rent levels in local communities due to
the proposed Project may remain elevated into
the first two years of operations.
An increase in rent levels will lead to a
detectable change and result in the moderate
modification of the social environment.
will lead to an increase in rental costs during
construction.
on the challenge in predicting the number of
Project workers that may seek rental
accommodation.
increase in permanent housing costs will be
Increased housing prices due to the proposed
Project will largely be confined to the
construction phase.
Reversibility: Medium-term
Increased permanent housing prices will lower
following the construction phase but may remain
elevated into the first two years of operations.
Magnitude: Low
An increase in housing costs will be detectable
but have no effect on the social environment
beyond a nuisance or inconvenience.
will lead to an increase in permanent housing
costs during construction.
The determination of significance is based on an
relationships and difficultly predicting the number
of Project workers that may choose to buy real
estate in the Nisga’a Villages during
construction.
increased demand on emergency services will
be completed in the construction phase.
The potential increase in demand on local and
regional emergency services will largely be
confined to the construction phase and the
services will be needed rarely.
An increased demand on emergency services
will largely be limited to the construction phase.
The increased demand on emergency services
will be detectable and result in a moderate
Probability: Medium
Confidence: Low
Increased demand on hospitals, police, fire,
ambulance and medical evacuation services
reduced availability of temporary
accommodation during construction.
and data pertinent to the proposed project area.
Frequency: Isolated to Accidental
Magnitude: Medium
Page 12-119
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Criteria Rating
Increased demand on hospitals, police, fire,
ambulance and medical evacuation services
(cont’d)
Probability: Medium
Increased demand on existing health care
services
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Altered social condition of communities due to
demographic and population changes
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Short-Term
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Increased demand on social services
The need for emergency services is moderately
likely to occur.
Based on the challenge in predicting the need
for emergency services, the level of confidence
is considered moderate.
The large workforce that accompanies the
activities associated with the installation of the
pipeline and facilities that may lead to an
increased demand on health care services will
be present during the construction phase.
The provision of health care services will only be
needed during the construction of the proposed
Project.
The increased demand on health care services
will be limited to the construction phase.
The increased demand on health care services
will be detectable and may result in the
modification of the social environment in the
event that a local resident is not able to receive
adequate medical care.
An increase in demand on health care services
resulting from an influx of workers is moderately
likely to occur.
Due to the limited information provided regarding
capacity of health care facilities and services,
the confidence is considered moderate based on
incompletely understood cause-effect
relationships using data pertinent to the
proposed Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may lead to altered
social condition will be present during the
construction phase.
The potential influx of workers will only be
present during the construction phase.
Changes in social conditions of communities will
be confined to the construction phase.
Changes in the social condition is expected to
have a detectable effect and result in a
moderate modification of the social environment.
A change in the social condition of the Nisga’a
Villages due to the construction period of the
proposed Project is moderately likely to occur.
using data outside the proposed Project area.
The workforce associated with the installation of
the pipeline and facilities that may increase
demand on social services will be present during
Frequency: Isolated
The potential influx of workers will only be
Increased demand on social services will be
Increased demand on social services is
expected to have a detectable effect and result
in a moderate modification of the social
environment.
Increase demand on social services during the
construction period of the proposed Project is
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Low to Medium
Page 12-120
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Criteria Rating
Increased demand on social services (cont’d)
Physical alteration of recreational areas
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Medium
Confidence: High
Increased demand on potable water in
communities
Frequency: Isolated
The need for potable water is confined to the
construction phase.
The increased demand on domestic water will
only occur only during the construction phase.
The potential residual effect will be detectable,
but has no effect on the social environment
beyond an inconvenience or nuisance.
The increased demand on water supply is
considered moderately likely to occur as potable
water for work camps will be supplied by a
combination of on-site wells and nearby
community water supplies.
on area good understanding of cause-effect
relationships using data outside of the proposed
Project area
The demand on waste disposal infrastructure
during construction will be limited to the
construction phase.
The need for waste disposal due to the
proposed Project is largely confined to the
construction phase. Waste disposal during
operations will be limited to small amounts
generated at compressor stations.
The increased demand on waste disposal
infrastructure will be limited to the construction
phase.
With the application of the proposed mitigation,
the potential residual effect will be detectable but
have no effect on the social environment beyond
that of an inconvenience or nuisance.
The increased demand on solid and liquid waste
management infrastructure is considered
good understanding of cause-effect
relationships.
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Moderate
Increased demand on municipal and regional
using data outside the proposed Project area
The physical disturbance of recreation areas will
be limited to the construction phase.
Ground disturbance in these areas will largely be
The physical disturbance to recreation areas will
occur during the construction phase and may
extend beyond the first two years of the
operations phase.
The potential residual effect will be detectable
but have no effect on the social environment
beyond a nuisance or inconvenience.
Recreation areas that are located near the
Project Footprint are moderately likely to
experience physical disturbance.
from data pertinent to the proposed Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may increase demand
on potable water in Nisga’a Villages will be
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Low
Probability: Medium
Confidence: High
Page 12-121
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Disruption of marine navigability during
construction
Criteria Rating
Frequency: Isolated
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Disruption of freshwater navigability
Frequency: Isolated
Probability: Medium
Confidence: High
Impacts on quality of road surfaces
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Medium
Confidence: High
Page 12-122
pipeline and facilities that may disrupt marine
navigability will be completed in the construction
phase.
The event pertains to the construction phase of
Navigability will be restored when construction of
the marine component is complete.
The disruption of marine navigability is expected
to constitute a temporary inconvenience or
nuisance to other marine users. In the unlikely
event that construction activities displace the
activities of commercial users such as marine
transportation vessels or commercial fishers and
the magnitude would be considered medium.
disruption of marine navigability during
construction.
relationships and data pertinent to the proposed
Project area.
pipeline and facilities that may disrupt freshwater
navigability will be completed in the construction
phase.
the terrestrial pipeline segment.
Navigability will be restored when water crossing
construction is complete.
For recreational users, the disturbance may
constitute a temporary inconvenience or
nuisance; however, if construction displaces the
activities of commercial sportfishing or river
rafting operations, there may be associated
financial losses and the magnitude would be
considered medium.
will disrupt freshwater navigability during
construction due to the large number of
watercourse crossings.
pipeline and facilities that may lead to reduced
road surface quality will be completed in the
construction phase.
The potential for reduced road surface quality is
The potential for reduced road surface quality
will only occur during the construction phase.
The reduced quality of road surfaces is
considered to be low based on the proposed
mitigation.
The reduced quality of road surfaces is
considered moderately likely to occur.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Increased traffic volumes on roads and highways
Criteria Rating
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Increased access to previously unroaded areas
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Disturbance of potentially contaminated marine
sediments at Alice Arm
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Short to Medium-term
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Low
Page 12-123
pipeline and facilities that may lead to increased
traffic volumes will be completed in the
construction phase.
The increase in vehicle traffic will be confined to
the construction period.
The increase in traffic volumes will be limited to
With the application of the proposed mitigation,
an increase in traffic volumes will result in a
detectable change and moderate modification of
the social environment, especially in populated
areas.
an increase in traffic volumes during
construction.
The clearing of the pipeline right-of-way and
development of new access will occur during the
construction phase.
Road development and right-of-way clearing that
will lead to increased access will occur during
The increase in access will continue throughout
Increased access will result in a detectable
change and result in moderate modification of
the social environment.
increased access.
All activities associated with the marine
installation of the proposed Project that are
expected to disturb contaminated seabed
sediments will occur in the construction phase.
Sediment disturbance will be confined to the
The potential disruption of contaminated
sediments due to the proposed Project and the
resulting human health effects are expected to
be limited to the construction phase. However,
medium-term human health effects extending
into the first two years of operations may persist
if biological uptake of metals occurs in marine
organisms that are regularly harvested for
human consumption.
of the health environment will result from
potentially contaminated sediments present
during construction of the proposed Project.
It is unlikely that the disturbance of contaminated
sediments due to the construction of the
proposed Project will lead to adverse human
health effects.
on laboratory analysis of field samples which
can be augmented with additional information
when construction methods are further
developed.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Disturbance of potentially contaminated marine
sediments at Ridley Island
Criteria Rating
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Short to Medium-term
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Low
Confidence: Low
Increased incidence of respiratory disease during
construction
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: Low
Confidence: Low
Increased crime rates
Frequency: Isolated
Magnitude: Medium
Page 12-124
All activities associated with the marine
installation of the proposed Project that are
expected to disturb contaminated seabed
sediments will occur in the construction phase
Sediment disturbance will be confined to the
The potential disruption of contaminated
sediments due to the proposed Project and
resulting human health effects are expected to
be limited to the construction phase. However,
medium-term human health effects extending
into the first two years of operations may persist
if biological uptake of dioxins or furans occurs in
marine organisms that are regularly harvested
for human consumption.
of the human environment will result from
potentially contaminated sediments present
during construction of the proposed Project.
It is unlikely that the disturbance of contaminated
sediments due to the construction of the
proposed Project will lead to adverse human
health effects due to the specific mitigation that
will be implemented pending the outcome of the
HHRA.
The confidence is low; the potential effects on
human health of the disturbance of marine
sediments in the Ridley Island area will be
clarified pending the outcome of the HHRA.
pipeline that may lead to an increase in
respiratory disease due to CACs from activities
like open burning will be completed in the
construction phase.
It is anticipated that open burning will be
confined to the construction phase of the
proposed Project.
The reduction in air quality that may lead to
adverse human health effects is generally
reversible in the short-term after construction.
Air emissions generated during construction of
the proposed Project may lead to a detectable
change and result in the moderate modification
of the health environment.
It is unlikely that open burning during
construction will lead to adverse human health
effects.
The confidence is considered low due to
insufficient information regarding the volume and
location of timber that will be disposed of by
burning.
pipeline and facilities that may lead to increased
crime rates will be present during the
construction phase.
The increase in crime rates will occur only during
proposed Project construction.
The potential increase in crime rates will be
limited to the construction phase.
The increase in crime rates may result in a
detectable and a moderate modification of the
social environment.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Increased crime rates (cont’d)
Criteria Rating
Probability: Medium
Cultural
Disruption of subsistence activities
Frequency: Isolated to Periodic
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Confidence: High
Alteration of subsistence resources
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Page 12-125
An increase in crime rates resulting from an
influx of workers is moderately likely to occur.
relationships using data outside the proposed
Project area.
The event causing disruption of subsistence
activities occurs during the construction phase or
periods of site-specific maintenance occurring
within one year during operations
activities is confined to the construction phase or
occurs intermittently, but repeatedly during the
operations phase.
The residual effect would be limited to the
construction phase or to less than one year
during the operations phase.
The implementation of the proposed mitigation
during the construction and operations phases to
reduce, but not eliminate, the potential effects on
subsistence activities.
The proposed Project is likely to disrupt
subsistence activities.
Based on a good understanding of cause-effect
relationships and data pertinent to the Project
area.
resources occurs during the construction phase
or periods of site-specific maintenance occurring
within one year during operations.
The event causing alteration of subsistence
resources is confined to the construction phase
or occurs intermittently, but repeatedly during
The effects on traditionally harvested resources
will depend upon each target species’
sensitivities; although the reversibility of the
effects on some resources will be in the shortterm, the most conservative rating predicts that
the effects are reversible in the long-term
following decommissioning, and habitat is
restored within the Footprint.
The effects assessment results for the marine
ecosystems, fish, vegetation, wetlands and
wildlife indicate that the potential effects on
traditionally harvested resources may be
detectable and are dependent upon each target
species’ sensitivities. While the residual effects
on pelagic and benthic fish due to underwater
blasting effects along the Kitsault Marine route
are in excess of regulatory standards, this
residual effect is not expected to exceed
environmental standards (see section 4.4.5).
Interim monitoring will be conducted following
construction of the initial pipeline to ensure any
identified areas of concern will be promptly
mitigated.
The proposed Project will affect environmental
resources thereby also affecting subsistence
resources.
The confidence is based on a good
understanding of cause-effect relationships, but
is based on a limited understanding of the use of
site-specific features in the Project area.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Disruption of trail and travelway use
Criteria Rating
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Disruption of habitation site use
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Disturbance of gathering places
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Page 12-126
The event causing disruption of use occurs
during the construction phase or periods of sitespecific maintenance occurring within one year
during operations
The event causing disruption of use is confined
to the construction phase or occurs
intermittently, but repeatedly during the
operations phase.
during construction and operations will reduce,
but not eliminate, the potential effects on use of
trails, travelways and habitation sites.
The proposed Project is likely to disrupt use of
trails, travelways and habitation sites
is based on a limited understanding of sitespecific features in the Project area.
The event causing disruption of use occurs
during the construction phase or periods of sitespecific maintenance occurring within one year
during operations
The event causing disruption of use is confined
to the construction phase or occurs
intermittently, but repeatedly during the
operations phase.
during construction and operations will reduce,
but not eliminate, the potential effects on use of
trails, travelways and habitation sites.
The proposed Project is likely to disrupt use of
trails, travelways and habitation sites
The event causing disturbance of gathering
places and sacred sites occurs during the
construction phase or periods of site-specific
maintenance occurring within one year during
operations.
places and sacred sites is confined to the
construction phase or occurs intermittently, but
repeatedly during the operations phase.
It is expected that Project-related disruptions
would be temporary through the implementation
of the proposed mitigation during construction
and operations to reduce, but not eliminate,
potential effects on disturbance of gathering
places and sacred sites.
The proposed Project is likely to disturb use of
gathering places and sacred sites.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Residual Effect
Criteria Rating
Disturbance of gathering places (cont’d)
Disturbance of areas identified as having sacred
value
Magnitude: Medium
Probability: High
Disruption of traditional language
Frequency: Isolated
Reversibility: Permanent
Magnitude: Medium to high
Probability: Low
12.3.3.1
places and sacred sites occurs during the
construction phase or periods of site-specific
maintenance occurring within one year during
operations.
places and sacred sites is confined to the
construction phase or occurs intermittently, but
repeatedly during the operations phase.
It is expected that Project-related disruptions
would be temporary through the implementation
of the proposed mitigation during construction
and operations to reduce, but not eliminate,
potential effects on disturbance of gathering
places and sacred sites.
The proposed Project is likely to disturb use of
gathering places and sacred sites.
The potential influx of workers that may disrupt
the traditional language of Nisga’a Citizens will
be limited to the construction phase.
The large number of workers that may adversely
affect the traditional language will be confine to
Project construction.
The potential disruption of traditional language
may be irreversible due to the relatively low
language retention of Nisga’a citizens.
The disruption of the traditional language has
the potential to result in the moderate to severe
It is unlikely that the proposed Project will
contribute to the disruption of the traditional
language of Nisga’a citizens.
The confidence is considered moderate to good
but incompletely understood cause-effect
relationships and data pertinent to the Project
area.
Economic
probability and confidence for economic-related residual effects is provided in Section 5.1. The reader
should refer to the sections of the Application cross-referenced in Table 12-25 for a complete assessment
of potential residual economic effects.
and related mitigation measures are considered applicable to the relevant Nisga’a 8(f) interests.
Page 12-127
Nisga’a Nation
12.3.3.2
April 2014
Social
probability and confidence for social and cultural-related residual effects is provided in Section 6.1. The
reader should refer to the sections of the Application cross-referenced in Table 12-25 for a complete
assessment of potential residual social and cultural effects.
and related mitigation measures are considered applicable to the relevant Nisga’a 8(f) interests
12.3.3.3
Cultural
probability and confidence for social and cultural-related residual effects is provided in Section 6.1. The
reader should refer to the sections of the Application cross-referenced in Table 12-25 for a complete
assessment of potential residual social and cultural effects.
and related mitigation measures are considered applicable to the relevant Nisga’a 8(f) interests.
12.3.3.4
Mitigation and Environmental Management Strategies
Consistent with the methodology described in Section 3.0, Table 12-24 summarizes the mitigation or
environmental management strategies that address identified effects to Nisga’a Nation’s Interests.
Should additional interactions on Nisga’a Nation Interests be identified through ongoing consultation with
Nisga’a Nation then the measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential effects will be implemented.
12.3.4
A qualitative assessment of the combined potential residual effects on Nisga’a citizens’ economic, social
and cultural well-being was deemed to be the most appropriate approach for the analysis of potential
cumulative effects.
Table 12-26 identifies major projects likely to proceed in the Nass Area that may act in combination with
TABLE 12-26
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MAJOR PROJECTS IN THE NASS AREA
Company
Project Name
Project Type
Ascot Resources Ltd.
Swamp Point Aggregate Mine
Avanti Kitsault Mining
Inc.
BC Hydro (Long Lake
Joint Venture)
British Columbia
Transmission
Corporation
District of Stewart
Enmax Syntaris Bid
Corp.
Kitsault Mine Project
Aggregate mine and
loading facility
Mine
Long Lake Hydro Project
Utility
NTL Project
Glacier Aggregates Inc.
Prince Rupert Gas
Transmission Ltd
Syntaris Power Corp
Location
Status
(September 2013)
50 km south of Stewart
On hold
140 km northeast of Prince
Rupert
Near Stewart
Proposed
Hydro
Skeena substation near
Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake
Construction started
Port of Stewart Expansion
Kinskuch Hydro Project
Marine port
Renewable energy
(hydroelectric)
Proposed
Proposed
Bear Creek Gravel Project
Prince Rupert Gas Transmission
Aggregate mine
Pipeline (new)
Kinskuch Power Project: Jade Lake Cluster
Hydroelectric facility
District of Stewart
Kinskuch Lake to BC
Transmission Corporation
Transmission Line on
Highway 37
Near Stewart
Hudson’s Hope to Lelu
Island
Kinskuch Lake, 27 km east
of Stewart
Page 12-128
Construction started
On hold
Proposed
Proposed
Nisga’a Nation
Source:
April 2014
BC Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 2013
It should be noted that the analysis of potential cumulative effects on the Nisga’a Nation is limited by the
lack of the following information:
•
schedule and sequence of construction of other major energy and mining projects;
•
methods of constructing and servicing other major energy and mining projects; and
•
likelihood that planned projects will proceed.
Overall the proposed Project will have positive effects as it relates to cumulative effects because the
potential inclusion of a second pipeline will:
•
it increases the potential for positive economic, social and cultural effects to be
sustained over a longer construction period and thereby increasing benefits to Nisga’a
citizens; and
•
minimize the potential for cumulative environmental effects relative to two separate
pipeline projects in two separate corridors, which could in turn affect the social,
economic and cultural well-being of Nisga’a citizens.
To the extent that the proposed Project has potential for adverse effects on the economic, social and
cultural well-being of Nisga’a citizens, the cumulative effects are not expected to be materially different
than the assessment of direct project effects set out in Table 12-24 because:
•
much of the analysis relating to matters such as impact on social services and effects
from increased employment are already based on the understanding that the demand
for employment and services in the region as a whole will be increasing substantially in
the foreseeable future, given development in the region; and
•
most of these other projects are not expected to have overlapping effects in relation to
more localized matters as discussed in Table 12-24, with a possible exception of the
Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project, which is the subject of ongoing environmental
process.
Notwithstanding the limited cumulative adverse effects on the economic, social and cultural well-being of
Nisga’a citizens, WCGT proposes to undertake the additional measures to mitigate adverse cumulative
effects and to maximize positive cumulative effects.
•
Continue to communicate with NLG, Nisga’a Villages and Nisga’a citizens regarding the proposed
Project schedule and other updates.
•
Review proposed schedules of other projects to coordinate reclamation schedules.
•
Continue to monitor for potential social effects and communicate any change in condition to the
Nisga’a Nation.
•
Consult with the Nisga’a Nation regarding other major projects in the Nass Area (Table 12-24) to
address any cumulative concerns related to areas identified as having sacred value or activities.
12.4
Issues Summary Table
Table 12-27 provides information on the potential effects and mitigation measures for the proposed
Project on Nisga’a Nation interests. Information on the location, spatial boundary and characterization are
provided in Section 12.2 as well as the relevant Application section.
Page 12-129
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-27
NISGA’A NATION ISSUES SUMMARY TABLE RELATING TO NFA CHAPTER 10 8(e)
Mitigation Measures
Potential Effect
Fish
Nass Salmon, Nass Steelhead and Eulachon
Alteration or loss of instream habitat
Increased suspended sediment concentrations in the
water column
Fish mortality and injury
Increased access to fish and fish habitat
Blockage of fish movements
Disturbance to nearshore habitat
Disturbance from construction noise
Disturbance due to underwater blasting
Disturbance due to sedimentation
Vegetation
Pine Mushroom, Redcedar and Yellow-cedar
Loss or alteration of pine mushroom habitat
Loss or alteration of red or yellow-cedar dominated
habitat
Wildlife
Grizzly Bear
Change in habitat, movement and mortality risk
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Information on key recommendations for general mitigation measures applied to this potential
effect is provided in Section 4.5.
Specific mitigation measures are provided in the Project EMP, Section 14.0.
Nisga’a Nation input has been considered and integrated into the proposed mitigation
measures and no additional Nisga’a-specific mitigation measures are proposed.
Marine
Alteration or loss of marine and foreshore vegetation due • Information on key recommendations for general mitigation measures applied to this potential
to construction activities
Alteration or loss of marine and foreshore vegetation due • Specific mitigation measures are provided in the Project EMP, Section 14.0.
to sedimentation
• Nisga’a Nation input has been considered and integrated into the proposed mitigation
Intertidal Bivalves, Dungeness Crab, Tanner Crab, King Crab and Wildlife Fish
Displacement/injury/mortality due to construction
• Information on key recommendations for general mitigation measures applied to this potential
Displacement/injury/mortality due to sedimentation
• Specific mitigation measures are provided in the Project EMP, Section 14.0.
Marine Mammals
Disturbance from construction noise
• Information on key recommendations for general mitigation measures applied to this potential
• Specific mitigation measures are provided in the Project EMP, Section 14.0.
Table 12-28 provide information on the potential effects and mitigation measures for the proposed Project
on Nisga’a Nation interests. Information on the location, spatial boundary and characterization are
provided in Section 12.3 as well as the relevant Application section.
Page 12-130
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TABLE 12-28
NISGA’A NATION ISSUES SUMMARY TABLE RELATING TO NFA CHAPTER 10 8(f)
Potential Effects
Mitigation Measures
Increased employment opportunities
Increased business and contracting opportunities
Increased future economic development
Workforce requirements of the proposed Project may exceed supply
Displacement of local workers and distortion of wage rates
Barriers to obtaining employment for the local workforce
Disruption of the local labour force due to the temporary nature of the proposed Project
Impacts on wilderness character due to access, clearing and helicopter overflights
Physical disturbance to Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park
Infringement on OGMAs
Disruption of access to outdoor recreational activities
Physical alteration of visually sensitive areas
Disruption of commercial fishing activities
Fishing gear loss or damage during construction
Barrier effect on Dungeness crab
Disruption of timber harvesting and silviculture activities
Impacts on volume of merchantable timber available for harvesting
Disruption of NTFP harvesting
Disruption of mining and mineral exploration
Increased spread of invasive weeds
Proposed Project will affect future farming activities
Disruption of commercial or informal Nisga’a hunting guide outfitters
Disruption of trapping activities
Disruption to commercial freshwater and land-based tourism activities
Disruption to commercial marine tourism activities
Disruption to hydropower, wind power and oil and gas tenures
Disturbance to residences, cabins and other human-occupied areas outside of communities
Inconsistencies with land and marine use plans
Altered social condition of communities due to demographic and population changes
Impacts on availability of temporary accommodation
Increased permanent housing costs
Increased demand on hospitals, police, fire, ambulance and medical evacuation services
Increased demand on existing health care services
Increased demand on social services
Altered campgrounds, recreation sites, trails and boat launches
Impacts on access to community recreation facilities
Altered telephone and internet services
Increased demand on potable water in communities
Altered surface water infrastructure
Altered groundwater infrastructure
Increase pressure on local and regional government staff and resources
Increased demand on municipal and regional solid and liquid waste infrastructure
Disruption of marine navigability during construction
Disruption of freshwater navigability
Impacts on quality of road surfaces
Increased traffic volumes on roads and highways
Transportation of dangerous goods
Increased access to previously unroaded areas
Disturbance of contaminated soil
Disturbance of potentially contaminated marine sediments
Page 12-131
general mitigation measures applied to
this potential effect is provided in
Section 12.3.2.
• Specific mitigation measures are provided
in the Project EMP, Section 14.0.
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Potential Effects
Mitigation Measures
Impacts on quality of country foods due to herbicide application during operations
Impacts on quality of country foods due to petroleum leaks and spills during construction
Altered quantity of productive harvesting sites
Impacts on availability of wildlife for consumption
Increased noise levels during construction
Increased noise levels during operation
Impacts on respiratory health during construction
Impacts on respiratory health during operation
Impacts on drinking water quality
Impacts on recreational water quality
Altered public safety and security due to a sudden increase in population
Disruption of hunting activities
Alteration of hunting sites
Disruption of subsistence trapping activities
Disruption of subsistence fishing activities
Alteration of fishing sites
Disruption of subsistence plant gathering activities
Alteration of plant gathering sites
Disruption of use of trails and travelways
Impacts on use of habitation sites
Disturbance of gathering places
Disturbance of areas identified as being of sacred value
Disruption of traditional language
Page 12-132
• See above
Nisga’a Nation
12.4.1
References
12.4.1.1
Personal Communications
April 2014
TERA wishes to acknowledge those people identified in the Personal Communications for their
assistance in supplying information and comments incorporated into this application.
Azak, C. CEO, Nisga’a Lisims Government, Gitlaxt’aamiks, BC. WCGT Meeting with Nisga’a Lisims
Lands and Resources Group, March 22, 2013.
Fekete, W. RPF, Director of Lands and Resources, Nisga’a Lisims Government, Gitlaxt’aamiks, BC.
WCGT Meeting with Nisga’a Lisims Lands and Resources Group, March 22, 2013.
Fisher, J. Impact Assessment Biologist, BC Ministry of Environment. Cranbrook, BC. Socio-Economic
Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Prince George (conference line), May 22,
2013.
Godon, A. Environmental Protection Officer, BC Ministry of Environment. Prince George, BC. SocioEconomic Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Prince George, May 22, 2013.
Giesbrecht, K. Principal, Kage Consulting, Prince George, BC. Socio-Economic Components of
Environmental Assessment Meeting in Prince George, May 22, 2013.
Griffin, M. Lands Manager, Gitlaxt’aamiks Office. Nisga’a Lisims Government, Gitlaxt’aamiks, BC. WCGT
Meeting with Nisga’a Lisims Lands and Resources Group, March 22, 2013, and, Nisga’a
Socio-Economic Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in New Aiyansh,
July 22, 2013.
Halseth, G. Director of UNBC’s Community Development Institute and Canada Research Chair in Rural
and Small Town Studies. Prince George, BC. Socio-Economic Components of Environmental
Assessment Meeting in Prince George, May 21, 2013.
Hoffman, E. Director Regional Operations, BC Ministry of Environment. Prince George, BC. SocioEconomic Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Prince George (conference
line), May 22, 2013.
Kervel, K. Executive Secretary, Wilp Wilxo’oskwhl Nisga’a Institute, Gitwinksihlkw, BC. Nisga’a SocioEconomic Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Gitwinksihlkw,
September 25, 2013.
Maitland, A. Mayor, Village of Hazelton. Hazelton, BC. Socio-Economic Components of Environmental
Assessment Meeting in Hazelton, February 20, 2013.
McCormick, W. Meteorologist, BC Ministry of Environment. Nanaimo/Victoria, BC. Socio-Economic
Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Prince George (conference line), May 22,
2013.
McKay, T. Lands Officer, Gitlaxt’aamiks Office. New Aiyansh, BC. Nisga’a Socio-Economic Components
of Environmental Assessment Meeting in New Aiyansh, July 22, 2013.
Menounos K. Public Health Protection Healthy Community Environments Lead, Northern Health, Prince
George, BC. Socio-Economic Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Prince
George, May 22, 2013.
Mercer, A. Chief Executive Officer, Nisga’a Commercial Group. Gitlaxt’aamiks, BC. Nisga’a
Socio-Economic Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Gitlaxt’aamiks,
September 26, 2013.
Mercer, B. Economic Development Manager/Project Manager, Nisga’a Lisims Government,
Gitlaxt’aamiks (New Aiyansh), BC. Nisga’a Socio-Economic Components of Environmental
Assessment Meeting in Gitlaxt’aamiks, July 24, 2013.
Page 12-133
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Nisyok W. Housing/Capital Projects, Village of Gitlaxt’aamiks, BC. Nisga’a Socio-Economic Components
of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Gitlaxt’aamiks, August 12, 2013.
Nyce, L. Student Support and Registration Administrator, Wilp Wilxo’oskwhl Nisga’a Institute,
Gitwinksihlkw, BC. Nisga’a Socio-Economic Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting
in Gitwinksihlkw, September 25, 2013.
Nyce Jr., H. Chief Executive Officer, Gitwinksihlkw Village. Gitwinksihlkw, BC. Socio-Economic
Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Gitwinksihlkw Village, September 25,
2013.
Robinson, A. CAO, Laxgalts’ap Village, Laxgalts’ap, BC. Socio-Economic Components of Environmental
Assessment Meeting in Laxgalts’ap Village, July 23, 2013.
Stewart, R. Director of Programs and Services, Nisga’a Lisims Government. New Aiyansh, BC. Nisga’a
Socio-Economic Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in New Aiyansh,
July 23, 2013.
Tait, Sergeant D. Detachment Commander, Royal Canadian Mounted Police. New Aiyansh, BC. Nisga’a
Socio-Economic Condition of Environmental Assessment Meeting in New Aiyansh, July 23, 2013.
Thibault, G. Public Health Protection Manager, Northern Health, Prince George, BC. Socio-Economic
Components of Environmental Assessment Meeting in Prince George, May 22, 2013.
Wilson, J. Special Projects Officer, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Delta, BC.
12.4.1.2
Literature Cited
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. 2013. First Nation Profiles. Website: http://pse5esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/FNP/Main/Index.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed: September 2013.
Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team. 2008. Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 2008-2013. Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery
Plan No. 15. Edmonton, AB. 68 pp.
AMEC. 2011a. Kitsault Mine Project Environmental Assessment. Section 13.0: Nisga’a Nation
Background and Setting. Prepared for Avanti Mining Group.
AMEC. 2011b. Kitsault Mine Project Environmental Assessment. Appendix 13.0 – A: Kitsault Project
Nisga’a Rights, Interests and Values Report – Baseline Appendix. Prepared for Avanti Mining
Group.
Andersen, R. 1991. Habitat deterioration and the migratory behaviour of moose (Alces alces l.) in
Norway. Journal of Applied Ecology 28:102-108.
Antoniuk, T. and B. Ainslie. 2003. Cumulative Effects: Sources, Indicators, and Thresholds. Appendix 1 in
Volume 2, Cumulative Effects Indicators, Thresholds, and Case Studies of the Cumulative Effects
Assessment and Management for Northeast British Columbia Project. Prepared for Oil and Gas
Science Commission Science and Community Knowledge Fund and Muskwa- Kechika
Management area by Salmo Consulting Inc.
Austin, M.A. and C. Wrenshall. 2004. An Analysis of Reported Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Mortality Data
in British Columbia from 1978-2003. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
Victoria, BC. 16 pp.
Bayne, E.M. and K.A. Hobson. 1997. Comparing the effects of landscape fragmentation by forestry and
agriculture on predation of artificial nests. Conservation Biology 11(6):1418-1429.
Bayne, E.M., S. Boutin, B. Tracz and K. Charest. 2005. Functional and numerical responses of ovenbirds
(Seiurus aurocapilla) to changing seismic exploration practices in Alberta’s boreal forest.
Ecoscience. 12(2):216-222.
Page 12-134
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
BC Cetacean Sightings Network. 2013. Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre and Fisheries and
Oceans Canada. Vancouver, BC.
BC Parks. 2013. Home. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/. Accessed: September 2013.
BC ShoreZone. 2013. Physical and Biophysical Shorezone Mapping Online via GeoBC. Coastal
Resource Information Management System. Website: www.data.gov.bc.ca. Accessed:
October 2013.
BC Stats. 2013. Home. Website: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/. Accessed: March 2013.
Bélisle, M. and C.C. St. Clair. 2001. Cumulative effects of barriers on the movements of forest birds.
Conservation Ecology 5(2):9.
Berch, S.M. and A.M. Wiensczyk. 2001. Ecological description and classification of some pine mushroom
(Tricholoma magnivelare) habitat in British Columbia. Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests.
Victoria BC; Kamloops BC. Research Report 19.
Boyd, S. and A. Breault. 2002. Identification of sea duck moulting areas along the mainland coast of
British Columbia. 63 pp. in North American Sea Duck Conference and Workshop.
British Columbia Forest Service. 1997. The effects of timber harvesting on mushroom and mycorrhizae of
the Date Creek Research Forest. Extension Note #25. Forest Sciences, Prince Rupert Forest
Region, Smithers, BC.
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. 2013. Energy Projects in BC. Website:
http://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects.html. Accessed: March 2013.
British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis. 2009. Eelgrass Polygons. Website:
http://bcmca.ca/datafeatures/eco_vascplants_eelgrass_polygons/. Accessed: September 2013.
British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis. 2011. Marine Atlas of Pacific Canada: A Product of the
British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis. Website: www.bcmca.ca/data. Accessed:
September 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. 2013. Nisga’a Final Agreement.
Website: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/nisgaa/. Accessed: December 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. 2013. School District No. 92 Nisga'a. Website:
http://www.nisgaa.bc.ca/schools/. Accessed: March 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2005. Checklist for Reviewing a Preliminary Site Investigation.
Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/remediation/guidance/. Accessed: August 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2009a. Draft Order – Wildlife Habitat Areas # 6-282 Grizzly
Bear – Nass TSA. 5 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2009b. Order – Ungulate Winter Range # 6-018. Moose – Nass
TSA. Final Draft.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010. Guide Outfitters in British Columbia 2010-2011. Website:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/non_resident/docs/guide_outfitters.pdf. Accessed:
September 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2011. Candidate Ungulate Winter Ranges for Moose In the
Kalum Forest District (excluding the Nass TSA). 18 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2012a. Order – Mountain Goat Ungulate Winter Range
# u-6-010 North Coast Timber Supply Area and Tree Farm License 25 – Block 5. Website:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/uwr/u-6-010_ord.pdf. Accessed: January 2014.
Page 12-135
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2012b. Grizzly Bear Population Status in B.C. Website:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-bears.html. Accessed:
November 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2013a. Fisheries Inventory Data Queries Fisheries Information
Summary System. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/fidq/main.do. Acessed: October 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2013b. Approved Ungulate Winter Ranges. Website:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/uwr/approved_uwr.html. Accessed: January 2014.
British Columbia Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2002. Kalum Land and
Resource Management Plan. Website:
http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/smithers/kalum_south/docs/April%20%202006%20Cabinet
%20Approved%20Kalum%20LRMP%20_amended_.pdf. Accessed: September 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012a. British Columbia
Grizzly Bear Population Estimates for 2012. Victoria, BC. 9 pp.
British Columbia Ministry of Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012b. Cranberry
Sustainable Resource Management Plan. Website:
http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/srmp/north/cranberry/docs/Cranberry_SRMP.docx.Accessed:
October 2013.
British Columbia Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012c. Nass South
Sustainable Resource Management Plan. Website:
http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/srmp/south/nass/index.html. Accessed: September 2012.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2013a. Central and North
Coast Order. Website:
http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/cencoast/docs/2013/cnc/Central-and-North-CoastOrder-Consolidated-Version-2013.pdf. Accessed: January 2014.
British Columbia Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. 2013. BC Major Projects Inventory:
September 2013. Website:
http://www.jtst.gov.bc.ca/ministry/major_projects_inventory/pdfs/September_2013_MPI.pdf.
Accessed: January 2014.
British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection: Environmental Stewardship Division. 2003.
Management Direction Statement for Bear Glacier Provincial Park.
Website:http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/bear_gla/bear_glacier.pdf.
Accessed: December 2013.
British Columbia Natural Gas Workforce Strategy Committee. 2013. BC Natural Gas Workforce Strategy
and Action Plan. Website: http://www.rtobc.com/Assets/RTO+Assets/About+RTO/
BC+NG+Strategy+2013JUL.pdf. Accessed: December 2013.
Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands. 2012. The List of Wetlands of International Importance. Website:
http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/sitelist.pdf. Accessed: November 2013.
Burger L. and Thuringer, P. 1996. A Marine Environmental Impact Assessment of a Proposed Log Dump,
Log Boom and Float Camp Facility in Nasoga Gulf, BC. Prepared for Skeena Sawmills by
Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 11 pp.
Canadian Lung Association. 2013. Pollution and Air Quality. Website: http://www.lung.ca/protectprotegez/pollution-pollution/outdoor-exterior/heating-chauffage_e.php#open. Accessed:
November 2013.
Centre for First Nations Governance. 2013. Best Practices, Nisga’a Nation, Principle: the Rule of Law.
Website:http://fngovernance.org/toolkit/best_practice/nisgaa_nation. Accessed: December 2013.
Page 12-136
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Clarke, C.L. and G.S. Jamieson. 2006. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in
the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area: Phase II – final report. Canadian Technical
Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2686. 25 pp.
Coast Forest Conservation Initiative. 2004. North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan: Final
Recommendations. Website: http://www.coastforestconservationinitiative.com/
pdf4/NCLRMP_Final.pdf. Accessed: February 2013.
Collister, D.M., J.L. Kansas, T. Antoniuk and B.J. Power. 2003. Review and Assessment of Environmental
Effects Information for Wildlife and Fish Indicators in the Regional Sustainable Development
Strategy (RSDS) Study Area within the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AOSR). Wildlife and Fish
Sub-Group, Cumulative Environmental Management Association. 432 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2012. COSEWIC Assessment and Status
Report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. xiv + 84 pp.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2013. the COSEWIC Prioritized Candidate
List. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm#3. Accessed: August 2013.
Core6 Environmental Ltd. 2013. Seafood Consumption Human Health Risk Assessment, Alice Arm,
British Columbia. Prepared for Archipelago Marine Research, Victoria, BC. 27 pp.
Côté, S.D. 1996. Mountain goat responses to helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:681-685.
Côté, S.D., S. Hamel, A. St-Louis and J. Mainguy. 2013. Do mountain goats habituate to helicopter
disturbance? The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(6):1244-1248.
Cotterill, S.E. and S.J. Hannon. 1999. No evidence of short-term effects of clear-cutting on artificial nest
predation in boreal mixedwood forests. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 29: 1900-1910.
Decision Economics Consulting Group. 2013. Economic Effects of the Westcoast Connector Gas
Transmission Project. 15 pp.
Degagne, D. and Lewis, A. 2001. Development of Criteria to Minimize Noise Annoyance from Industrial
Applications. Website:
http://www.noisesolutions.com/uploads/images/pages/resources/pdfs/Noise%20Annoyance%20P
aper.pdf. Accessed: December 2013.
Demarchi, M. W. 2000. Moose in the Nass Wildlife Area: final report. LGL Report EA1096-99. Prepared
for Forest Renewal BC by Nisga’a Tribal Council, New Aiyansh, BC, and LGL Limited,
Sidney, BC. 66 pp.
Demarchi, M.W. 2003. Migratory patterns and home range size of moose in the Central Nass Valley,
British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist 84(3):135-141.
Demarchi, M.W. 2007. A stratified random block survey of moose in the Nass River watershed. Nisga’a
Lisims Government, New Aiyanish, BC.
Demarchi, M.W. 2013. Nass Moose Recovery Plan. Draft. Prepared by the Nisga’a Fish and Wildlife
Committee for the Nass Wildlife Committee.
Demarchi, M.W. and S.R. Johnson. 1998. Mountain goat inventory in the Nass Wildlife Area Region A:
1997 Annual Report. Prepared for Forest Renewal BC and Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks by Nisga’a Tribal Council, New Aiyansh, BC and LGL Limited, Sidney, BC. 40 pp.
Demarchi, M.W. and G. Schultze. 2011. A Stratified Random Block Survey of Moose in the Nass River
Watershed. LGL Report Prepared for the Nisga’a Lisims Government, New Aiyanish, BC.
Desrochers, A. and S. Hannon. 1997. Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post-fledging
period. Conservation Biology 11(5):1204-1210.
Page 12-137
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Drever, C.R. and K.P. Lertzman. 2001. Light growth responses of coastal Douglas-fir and western
redcedar saplings under different regimes of soil moisture and nutrients. Can. J. For. Res
31:2124-2133.
Durall, D.M., M.D. Jones, E.F. Wright, P. Kroeger and K.D. Coates. 1999. Species-richness of
ectomycorrhizal fungi in cutblocks of different sizes in the interior cedar-hemlock forests of
northwestern British Columbia: sporocarps and ectomycorrhizae. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 29:1322-1332.
Dussault, C.R., R. Courtois and J. Ouellet. 2006. A habitat suitability index model to assess moose
habitat selection at multiple spatial scales. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 1097-1107.
Eggleton J. and K.V. Thomas. 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of
contaminants during sediment disturbance. Environment International 30: 973-980.
Environment Canada. 2012. List of Protected Species, British Columbia. Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/appa/default.asp?lang=En&n=0D0A02C4-1. Accessed: November 2013.
Ferguson, M.A.D. and L.B. Keith. 1985. Influence of Nordic skiing on distribution of moose and elk in Elk
Island National Park, Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 96(1):69-78.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005. Important Areas used in the determination of Ecologically and
Biologically Significant Areas for the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area: Mapster
v3. Website: http://pacgis01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Mapster30/#/SilverMapster. Accessed: October 2013.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012a. Commercial Catch Data, Mapster v3 online database. Website:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/gis-sig/maps-cartes-eng.htm. Accessed: November 2013.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012b. Escapement Records: Fraser Valley Watershed Atlas: Community
Mapping Network. Website: http://cmnmaps.ca/FVRD/. Accessed: September 2013.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012c. Commercial Catch Data, Mapster v3 online database. Website:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/gis-sig/maps-cartes-eng.htm. Accessed: November 2013.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013a. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan: Salmon
Northern BC – June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014. Website: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fmgp/mplans/2013/smon/smon-nc-cn-2013-eng.pdf. Accessed: September 2013.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013b. Pacific Region Integrated Management Plan Fraser River
Eulachon April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014. 44 pp.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013c. Herring Spawn and Catch Records. Website: http://www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/pelagic-pelagique/herring-hareng/herspawn/032fig-eng.html.
Acessed: August 2013.
Flaspohler, D.J., S.A. Temple and R.N. Rosenfield. 2001. Species-specific edge effects on nest success
and breeding bird density in a forested landscape. Ecological Applications 11(1):32-46.
Fleming, W and F.K.A. Schmiegelow. 2002. Response of bird communities to pipeline rights-of-way in the
Boreal Forest of Alberta. Pp 431-437 in Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management:
Seventh International Symposium. J.W. Goodrich-Mahoney, D.F. Mutrie and C.A. Guild (Eds.).
Freshwater Fisheries Society of British Columbia. 2007. Fish Wizard. Website:
http://www.fishwizard.com/. Accessed: July 2007.
Gamiet S., H. Ridenour and F. Philpot. 1998. An Overview of Pine Mushrooms in the Skeena-Bulkley
Region. Smithers, BC. Website:
http://northwestinstitute.ca/images/uploads/mushroom_report_98.pdf. Accessed:
November 2013.
Page 12-138
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Gebauer, M.B. 2003. Migratory Bird Conservation Plans: Compendium Report. Canadian Wildlife Service,
Pacific and Yukon Region. Delta, BC. 301 pp.
Grant Copeland & Associates and C. McKay. 1997. Anhluut’ukwsim La xmihl Angwinga’asanskwhl
Nisga’a (Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park) Master Plan. Prepared for Joint Nisga’a/BC Parks
Committee. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/nisgaa/finalnis.pdf.
Accessed: September 2013.
Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
Halpin, M. and M. Seguin, 1990. "Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and
Gitksan", In: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne
Suttles. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 267–284 pp.
Hamilton, A.N., M.A. Austin and D.C. Heard. 2004. British Columbia Grizzly Bear Population Estimate –
2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch.
Victoria, BC. 9 pp.
Hancock, M. and D. Marshall. 1984. Catalogue of Salmon Streams and Spawning Escapements of
Statistical Area 3 (Nass River) including adjacent streams. Vancouver, BC. Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. 371 pp.
Hay, D. and P. McCarter. 2000. Status of the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus in Canada. Canadian Stock
Assessment Secretariat Research Document 2000/145. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 92 pp.
Hay, D. and P. McCarter. 2006. Herring Spawn Areas of British Columbia, a Review, Geographic Analysis
and Classification. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Revised Edition 2007
Health Canada. 2004. Canadian Handbook on Impact Assessment. Website: http://www.hcsc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/pubs/promotion/_environ/handbook-guide2004/index-eng.php. Accessed:
September 2013.
Health Canada. 2010a. Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and ChemicalSpecific Factors, Version 2.0. Website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/contamsite/partpartie_ii/index-eng.php. Accessed: December 2013.
Health Canada. 2010b. Useful Information for Environmental Assessments. Website: http://www.hcsc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/eval/environ_assess-eval/index-eng.php. Accessed: December 2013.
Health Canada. 2012. Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality. Website: http://www.hcsc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/pdf/pubs/water-eau/guide_water-2012-guide_eau/guide_water2012-guide_eau-eng.pdf. Accessed: February 2014.
Health Canada. 2013. Home. Website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php. Accessed: December
2013.
Hill, D., D. Hokin, D. Price, G. Tuckers, R. Morris and J. Treweek. 1997. Bird disturbance: improving the
quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 275-288.
Hirsch, M. 2003. Trading Across Time and Space: Culture along the North American “Grease Trails” from
a European Perspective. Presented at the Canadian Studies International Interdisciplinary
Conference: Across Time and Space Visions for Canada and Abroad. University College of the
Cariboo: Kamloops. Website:
http://www.centerfortraditionalmedicine.org/uploads/2/3/7/5/23750643/oolichan.paper.mirjam.pdf.
Ibarzabal, J. and A. Desrochers. 2001. Lack of relationship between forest edge proximity and nest
predatory activity in an eastern Canadian boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
31:117-122.
Page 12-139
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Ignas, V. 2003. Two Ways of Knowing: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Scientific Knowledge.
Forests for the Future, Unit 1. UBC: Vancouver, BC.
Ingenia Consulting. 2012. Labour Market Supply Side Environmental Scan – BC’s Natural Gas Sector.
Website:
http://www.rtobc.com/Assets/RTO+Assets/BC+NG+Labour+Market+Supply+Side+Environmental
+Scan+Final+Report+2013.pdf. Accessed: December 2013.
Integrated Land Management Bureau. 2006. Kalum South Sustainable Resource Management Plan.
Website: http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/srmp/ north/kalum/plan/Kalum_SRMP.pdf. Accessed:
September 2012.
Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Ross and M.D. Nasserden. 1997. The Effects of Linear Developments on Wildlife: A
Review of Selected Scientific Literature. Prep. for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Arc Wildlife Services Ltd. Calgary, AB. 115 pp.
James, A. and A. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of Caribou and Wolves in Relation to Linear Corridors.
The Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1):154-159.
Jones, M.D., D.M. Durall and J.W.G. Cairney. 2003. Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities in young forest
stands regenerating after clearcut logging. New Phytologist 157: 399-422.
Kalum Land and Resource Management Plan Planning Table. 2002. Kalum Land and Resource
Management Plan. Website:
http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/smithers/kalum_south/docs/April%20%202006%20Cabinet
%20Approved%20Kalum%20LRMP%20_amended_.pdf. Accessed: December 2013.
Kansas, J.L. 2002. Status of the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta. Alberta Wildlife Status Report
No. 37. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association.
Edmonton, AB.
Kunkel, K.E. and D.H. Pletscher. 2000. Habitat factors affecting vulnerability of moose to predation by
wolves in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:150-157.
Levy, D. 2006. Nass River Salmon Fishery Report Card. Sierra Club of Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Malt, J.M. and D.B. Lank. 2009. Marbled murrelet nest predation risk in managed forest landscapes:
dynamic fragmentation effect at multiple scales. Ecological Applications 19(5):1274-1287.
McKay, T., K. Graham and G. Stenhouse. 2013. Grizzly Bears and Pipelines: Response to Unique Linear
Features. Year 1 (2012) Final Report. Alberta Upstream Petroleum Research Fund
(No. 09-9203-50).
McCart, P. and R. Withler. 1980. Assessment of Information Regarding Fish and Fisheries in Alice Arm,
BC. Nanaimo, BC. P. McCart Biological Consulting Ltd. 71 pp
McLellan, B.N. 1990. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. International
Conference of Bear Research and Management. 8: 57-64.
Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series No. 6. Research
Branch and Forest Sciences Section of the British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC.
Murray, C. and T. Therriault. 2010. Proceedings of the North Coast Eulachon Workshop: March 4-5,
2009, Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences. 2936: v +: 19 pp
Mountain Goat Management Team. 2010. Management Plan for the Mountain Goat (Oreamnos
americanus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC.
87 pp.
Page 12-140
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Mussio Ventures Ltd. 2009. Northern BC Fishing Mapbook (1st Edition). Mussio Ventures Ltd.,
Coquitlam, BC. 208 pp.
Naspetti, S. and Zanoli, R. 2006. Organic Food Quality and Safety Perception throughout Europe.
Website: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10086/1/sp06na01.pdf. Accessed: December
2013.
Nass, B.L. and K. English 1997. Nisga’a Bivalve Harvest Areas and Surveys if Bivalve Beaches in the
Nass Area. Prepared by LGL Ltd. for the Nisga’a Tribal Council, BC Ministry Agriculture Fisheries
and Food and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Nisga’a Fisheries Report NF96-06. 7 pp. + App.
Nisga’a Commercial Group. 2013. Report to the Community. 25 pp.
Nisga'a Fish and Wildlife Department. 2013a. Nass River Salmon Stock Assessment Update – Tuesday,
17 September. Website: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/northcoastcotenord/docs/nass/nass-2013-09-17.pdf. Accessed: September 2013.
Nisga’a Heritage Preservation Society and Nisga’a SD. 2012. Language Needs Assessment #2486.
Website: http://maps.fphlcc.ca/node/2486. Accessed: December 20, 2013.
Nisga’a Lisims Government, Province of British Columbia and Government of Canada. 2000. Nisga’a
Final Agreement. Nisga’a Lisims Government, Province of BC, and Government of Canada: New
Aiyansh, BC. Website:
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/99002_34. Accessed:
December 2013.
Nisga’a Lisims Government. 2002. A Land Use Plan for Nisga’a Lands. Directorate of Lands and
Resources, Nisga’a Lisims Government Website:
http://www.nisgaalisims.ca/files/nlg/Land%20Use%20Plan%20Dec%202002.pdf. Accessed:
December 2013.
Nisga'a Lisims Government. 2009. Nisga'a Final Agreement Implementation Report 2008-09. Website:
http://www.nisgaalisims.ca/files/nlg/u3/NLG-AR08-09SinglePages.pdf. Accessed: February 2013.
Nisga'a Lisims Government. 2012. Prosperity for the Nisga'a Nation, Economic Development Framework
2012-2022. 40 pp.
Nisga’a Lisims Government Fish and Wildlife Department. 2013b. Nass Area Pre-Impact Studies,
2013-2017. 30 pp. Nisga’a Fish and Wildlife Committee. 2013. Nass Moose Recovery Plan. Draft
1 July 2013. Nass Wildlife Committee. New Aiyanish, BC.
Northern Health Authority. 2013. Home. Website: http://www.northernhealth.ca/Home.aspx. Accessed:
February 2013.
Northwest Community College. 2013. Website: http://www.nwcc.bc.ca/sites/default/files/contentfiles/miscellaneous/NW%20Regional%20Skills%20Training%20Plan%202013-2018_2.pdf.
Olivotto Timber. 1999. Pine mushrooms and timber production in the Cranberry Timber Supply area.
Prince Rupert Forest Region. Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research, Smithers, BC.
Ortega, Y.K. and D.E. Capen. 1999. Effects of forest roads on habitat quality for ovenbirds in a forested
landscape. The Auk 116(4): 937-946.
Peek, J.M. 2007. Habitat Relationships. 351-376 pp. in Ecology and Management of the North American
Moose. A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz (Eds.).
Remington, D. 1993. Coastal Wetlands Habitat Assessment and Classification for Northwestern British
Columbia. Unpublished contract report for Pacific Estuary Conservation Program, BC.
Page 12-141
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
Rescan. 2012. Kitsault Mine Project: Nisga’a economic, social and cultural impacts assessment report.
Prepared for Avanti Mining Inc. by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.: Vancouver, BC. 584 pp.
Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human
disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3): 634-638.
Rodway, M. and M. Lemon. 1991. British Columbia Seabird Colony Inventory: Report #7: Northern
Mainland Coast. Technical Report Series No.121. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon
Region. 181 pp.
Rolley, R.E. and L.B. Keith. 1980. Moose population dynamics and winter habitat use at Rochester,
Alberta, 1965-79. Canadian Field-Naturalist 94(1):9-18.
Ryder, J., J. Kenyon, D. Buffett, K. Moore, M. Ceh and K. Stipec. 2007. An integrated biophysical
assessment of estuarine habitats in British Columbia to assist regional conservation planning.
Yukon, BC. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 476.
Schmiegelow F. and M. Mönkkönen. 2002. Habitat loss and fragmentation in dynamic landscapes: avian
perspectives from the boreal forest. Ecological Applications 12(2):375-389.
Schweigert, J., C. Wood, D. Hay, M. McAllister, J. Boldt, P. McCarter, T. Therriault and H. Brekke. 2012.
Recovery Potential Assessment of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Canada. Canadian
Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document. 2012/098: 121 pp.
Serrouya, R. and R.G. D'Eon. 2002. Moose Habitat Selection in Relation to Forest Harvesting in a Deep
Snow Zone of British Columbia. Revelstoke, BC. Prepared for Downie Timber Limited.
Skeena-Nass Centre for Innovation in Resource Economics. 2011. Northwest Transmission Line Labour
Market Partnerships Project: Labour Market Research Summary. Website:
http://sncire.ca/images/NTL_LabourMarket_ResearchSummary.pdf. Accessed: January 2014.
Skeena Native Development Society. 2006. 2006 Labour Market Census. Website:
http://www.princerupert.ca/images/editor/File/Cityplans/2013/touchstones/labourmarker2006.pdf .
Sloan, N., S. Bower and S. Robinson. 1984. Cocoon deposition on three crab species and fish parasitism
by the leech Notostomum cyclostoma from deep fjords of British Columbia. Marine Ecology
Progress Series. 20: 51-58.
Stantec Consulting Inc. 2009. Nisga’a Village of Gitwinksihlkw Official Community Plan. 61 pp.
Statistics Canada. 2007. 2006 Community Profiles. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/censusrecensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed: April 2013.
Statistics Canada. 2012. Census Profile. Website: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed: July 2013.
St. Clair, C.C., M. Bélisle, A. Desrochers and S. Hannon. 1998. Winter responses of forest birds to habitat
corridors and gaps. Conservation Ecology 2(2):13.
St-Louis, A., S. Hamel, J. Mainguy and S.D. Côté. 2013. Factors influencing the reaction of mountain
goats towards all-terrain vehicles. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(3):599-605.
TERA Environmental Consultants. 2014. Vegetation Technical Data Report for the Proposed Westcoast
Connector Gas Transmission System. February 2014. TERA Environmental Consultants,
Calgary, AB.
Tranquilla, M., L., K. Truman, D. Johannessen and T. Hooper. 2007. Appendix K: Marine Birds.
Ecosystem Overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA). Canadian
Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. B. Lucas, S. Verrin and R. Brown. 68 pp.
Page 12-142
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
TranBC. 2014. Highway 113 – Road to Opportunity for Nisga’a Nation. Website:
http://tranbc.ca/2012/07/03/highway-113-road-to-opportunity-for-nisgaa-nation/. Accessed:
December 2013.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2012. UNESCO - MAB Biosphere
Reserves Directory. Website: http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/database.asp.
Accessed: November 2013.
United States Environmental Protection Act. 2014. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Website:
http://www.epa.gov/iriswebp/iris/index.html. Accessed: February 2014.
Van Tongeren, V. and I. Winther. 2010. 2009 North Coast (Areas 3 & 4) Creel Survey Statistics for
Salmon and Groundfish. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Prince
Rupert, BC. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 97 pp.
Wiacek, R., M. Nietfeld and H. Lazaruk. 2002. A Review and Assessment of Existing Information for Key
Wildlife and Fish Species in the Regional Sustainable Development Strategy Study Area.
Volume 1: Wildlife. Prepared by Westworth Associated Environmental Ltd. for the Cumulative
Environmental Management Association Wildlife and Fish Working Group. April 2002.
Wescoast Connector Gas Transmission. 2013. Approach to Assessing the Social, Economic, Health and
Cultural Effects on the Nisga’a Nation of the proposed Spectra Energy Natural Gas Transmission
System – Northeast British Columbia to the Prince Rupert Area.
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 2012. Sites in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network. Website: http://www.whsrn.org/sites/map-sites/sites-western-hemisphereshorebird-reserve-network. Accessed: November 2013.
Yamanaka, K. and L. Lacko. 2001. Inshore Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus, S. maliger, S. caurinus,
S. melanops, S. nigrocinctus, and S. nebulosus) Stock Assessment for the West Coast of
Canada and Recommendations for Management. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Research Document. 2001/139: 102 pp
Page 12-143
Nisga’a Nation
April 2014
APPENDIX A.12-1
NISGA’A NATION COMMENTS ON THE WCGT ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION REPORT
WCGT shared the Aboriginal Consultation Plan with Nisga’a Nation for review and comment prior to final
plan submission to the BC EAO. Through consultation activities to date, Nisga’a Nation has proposed
minor changes to the Aboriginal Consultation Plan for the proposed Project (Table A-1).
TABLE A.12-1
NISGA’A NATION REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION PLAN/REPORT
Concern
There is no “the” before Nisga’a Lisims
Government or NLG.
Section C.2(a) should refer to the Nisga’a
Village of Gitlaxt’aamiks (formerly “New
Aiyansh”).
Correct spelling for the other three Nisga’a
communities can be found in NFA.
Where Issue Addressed in the
Consultation Plan
WCGT will remove the word “the” in reference to Nisga’a
Lisims Government or NLG.
WCGT will replace “New Aiyansh” with “Village of
Gitlaxt’aamiks”.
B(g)
WCGT has been provided with the spelling of all Nisga’a
Villages and made the required revisions.
Throughout the consultation plan
Page A12-1
C.1( n)

part d nisga`a nation - Province of British Columbia

Transcription

Similar documents

Zoom on the Nisga`a

Nisga`a Lisims Government

January 2015 - AME BC Roundup

Nisga`a Lisims Government Newsletter

March-April 2016 NLG Newsletter - FINAL

Nisga`a Lisims Government Newsletter

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

To this: Davidsonville Wildlife Sanctuary Wetland Restoration Best

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

the complete timeline