Prepared For: Prepared By

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

APPENDIX 1

SPRING/SUMMER AQUATIC HABITAT INVESTIGATIONS FOR THE NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. HORN RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT

SPRING/SUMMER AQUATIC HABITAT INVESTIGATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LTD. HORN RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT

February 2010 6391

Prepared for: Prepared by:

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. TERA Environmental Consultants A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Calgary, Alberta. Ph: 403-265-2885

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Project Description...... 1 1.2 Study Area ...... 3 1.3 Fish Community ...... 3 1.4 Regulatory Requirements ...... 6 1.5 Scope of Work...... 7 2.0 METHODS ...... 8 2.1 Field Crew Structure and Scheduling ...... 8 2.2 Fish and Fish Habitat Investigations...... 8 2.3 Open Water Aquatic Habitat Assessment ...... 9 2.4 Fish Inventories...... 9 2.5 Vegetation in Riparian Areas ...... 9 2.6 Traditional Ecological Knowledge...... 10 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 11 3.1 Field Crew Structure ...... 11 3.2 Watercourse Crossings...... 11 3.2.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment ...... 12 3.2.2 Fish Habitat Potential...... 13 3.2.3 Fish Inventories...... 16 3.2.4 Instream Timing Windows...... 16 3.3 Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages...... 19 3.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment ...... 19 3.3.2 Fish Habitat Potential...... 19 3.3.3 Fish Inventories...... 19 3.3.4 Instream Timing Windows...... 20 3.4 Vegetation in Riparian Areas ...... 20 3.5 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Results...... 23 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 24 4.1 Recommended Crossing Methods for Watercourses...... 24 4.1.1 Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods...... 24 4.1.2 Contingency Pipeline Crossing Methods ...... 31 4.1.3 Recommended Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods ...... 31 4.2 Recommended Crossing Methods for Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages...... 31 4.2.1 Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods...... 31 4.2.2 Contingency Pipeline Crossing Methods ...... 32 4.2.3 Recommended Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods ...... 32 4.3 Recommended Riparian Area Management ...... 32 4.4 Recommended Crossing Methods for Non-Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages...... 33 5.0 MITIGATION ...... 34 5.1 Standard Mitigation ...... 34 5.2 Mitigation for an Isolated Pipeline Crossing...... 35 5.3 Mitigation for Open Cut Pipeline Crossings if Water Present ...... 36 5.4 Mitigation for Dry or Frozen to Bottom Open Cut Pipeline Crossings ...... 37 5.5 Mitigation for Trenchless Pipeline Crossings...... 38 5.6 Mitigation for Vehicle and Equipment Crossings ...... 38

Page i

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

5.7 Mitigation for Riparian Area Management ...... 39 5.8 Effectiveness of Recommended Mitigation...... 40 5.9 Mitigation for Navigable Watercourses ...... 40 6.0 SUMMARY / CLOSING...... 41 7.0 REFERENCES...... 42 7.1 Personal Communications ...... 42 7.2 Literature Cited...... 42

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1A Watercourse Site Records ...... 45 Appendix 1B Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages Site Records...... 65 Appendix 1C Non-Classified Drainages Site Records...... 69

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location of Watercourse Crossings along NGTL Horn River Mainline Project...... 2 Figure 2 Fish Symbol Map for Watercourse Crossings along the NGTL Horn River Mainline Project...... 30

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Fish Species That May Occur in the Study Area Within the Sahtaneh River Watershed Group...... 5 Table 2 Fish Species That May Occur in the Study Area Within the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group...... 5 Table 3 Timing Windows of Least Risk for the Peace Region...... 6 Table 4 Previous and New Watercourse Crossing Locations Affected by the Route Refinements...... 11 Table 5 Riparian Management Areas for Stream Classes of Watercourses Crossed...... 12 Table 6 Summary of Water Quality Parameters and Channel Characteristics for Watercourses and Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages Crossed...... 14 Table 7 Summary of Fish Habitat Potential Ratings ...... 15 Table 8 Summary of Fish Sampling Results...... 17 Table 9 Summary of Dominant Riparian Area Plant Species and Densities Along the Horn River Mainline Project ...... 21 Table 10 Summary of Watercourse and Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainage Crossings Along the Horn River Mainline Project...... 26 Table 11 Summary of Drainage Crossings Along the Horn River Mainline Project...... 28

Page ii

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada), is proposing to construct the Horn River Mainline Project (the Project) from the proposed Cabin Meter Station (c-74-J/94-P-4) to the proposed Sierra Meter Station (b-25-K/94-I-11), located approximately 70 km east of Fort Nelson, British Columbia (BC) (Figure 1). The Project will contribute to TransCanada's capacity to extend the Alberta System to transport sweet natural gas from the Horn River area in northeast BC. The Project will consist of approximately 71.9 km of new 914.4 mm O.D. (NPS 36) natural gas pipeline (the Cabin Mainline), pipeline risers, valves and blind flanges to accommodate the potential installation of launcher and receiver facilities for in-line inspection. Other works may include Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), block valves, cathodic protection and associated miscellaneous works. The Project also includes a 2.2 km long 609.6 mm O.D. (NPS 24) secondary tie-in pipeline, the Komie East Extension. This extension will facilitate connection of the proposed Komie East Meter Station, adjacent to the proposed Spectra Energy Inc. Fort Nelson North Processing Facility (Spectra Facility), in d-48-I/94-P- 4 with the Cabin Mainline. NGTL is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) to use the Alternative Integrity Validation (AIV) process as a substitute for hydrostatic pressure testing of the pipeline. Hydrostatic testing is proposed only as a contingency for AIV, as the quantities of water needed to hydrotest the pipeline are not available in reasonable proximity to either the Cabin Mainline or the Komie East Extension. In the event the AIV process is not approved for the Project, a temporary overland water pipeline is planned between Cabin Lake and the Komie East Meter Station in d-48-I/94-P-4. The proposed pipeline route (the final configuration has not yet been selected) has been aligned to parallel existing linear disturbances (i.e., road, pipeline or seismic line) as much as possible. The water pipeline will be removed immediately following completion of testing. The proposed construction right-of-way will be 32 m wide, with additional temporary workspace required at select locations to accommodate construction activities (e.g., roads, watercourse crossings, sharp sidebends, steep sidehill, log decking sites, etc.). NGTL will also require areas for material staging and stockpiling, and equipment storage. This document describes the methods and results of the aquatic habitat assessments and fisheries investigations that NGTL contracted TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA) to perform as part of NGTL's regulatory requirements. This report also discusses how TERA and the communities of Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN), Prophet River First Nation (PFRN) and Dene Tha’ First Nation (DTFN) worked collaboratively to identify and document Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) at each watercourse crossing. A winter aquatic habitat assessment was conducted at eight watercourse crossings along the proposed pipeline route during frozen conditions in March 2009. Members of FNFN and DTFN participated in the winter aquatic assessment. A substantial portion of the pipeline route was realigned following the winter aquatic assessments. The remaining watercourse crossings, and any crossing sites which changed as a result of minor route refinements that developed subsequent to field surveys, will require winter aquatic habitat investigations that will be conducted in winter 2010. The results from the March 2009 assessment will be submitted to the NEB under a separate cover along with the results of the remaining winter investigations that will be completed in February/March 2010. Minor route refinements were made in November 2009 (i.e., after the completion of the open water assessments), and as a result, five watercourse crossings (4-WC, 6-WC, 10-WC, 11-WC, 15-WC) were moved either downstream or upstream on the watercourse they occur on. Following the winter 2010 assessments, it will be determined if further open water assessments will be required at these locations. In addition, winter aquatic assessments will be conducted along the contingency temporary overland pipeline that will be used, if required, for hydrostatic testing. Another season of open water assessments will also be required at several watercourse crossings to confirm their fish-bearing status.

Page 1

94- P- 5/ 94- P- 5/ 94- P- 5/ 94- P- 6/ 94- P- 6/ 94- P- 6/ 94- P- 6/ Blo ck C Blo ck B Blo ck A Blo ck B t C r e e k Blo ck A Blo ck D Blo ck C n d B r a Proposed Cabin n d Meter Station la a o a Cr ee k O u t a a n e td e y Texaco et c-074-J/094-P-04 h L a k e Lakes !. 1-WC T 94- P- 3/ KP 0 ! 2-D Proposed Komie East ! Blo ck K ! Meter Station 94- P- 4/ 1-D d-048-I/094-P-04 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ 4-D Alternative Option Blo ck K 3-D Blo ck L Block J Block I !!! 94- P- 4/ ! 94- P- 4/ Ca b in Block J 2-WC K Block I La k e o t 5-D c h si e r o o i C r r v e e R C o u k 3-WC

Preferred Option i v ! e r ! Me a o u li e La k e 4-WC !. KP 10 6-D 5-WC ! 7-D 8-D 94- P- 4/ ! 94- P- 4/ 94- P- 4/ 6-WC Blo ck H 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ 9-D ! Blo ck F Blo ck G 10-D Blo ck E Blo ck F Blo ck G Blo ck H 11-D ! ! 12-D 13-D ! ! ! ! 14-D 7-WC ! ! 16-D 15-D ! ! 18-D 17-D ! ! 8-WC 21-D 22-D Ko t c h o 9-WC La k e !.! 24-D 19-D ! Kotcho Lake KP 20 ! ! 20-D ! Ecological Reserve 23-D ! 26-D 25-D ! 28-D 94- P- 4/ 94- P- 4/ 27-D 94- P- 3/ ! 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ Blo ck C Blo ck B Blo ck D Blo ck C Blo ck A 10-WC ! 94- P- 4/ Blo ck A 29-D 94- P- 3/ Kotcho Lake ! 1-FD Blo ck B Village Site Park ! 11-WC ! r e v 30-D !.KP 30 i k R ! e h 32-D e e r 94- I-14/ n

C a 31-D Blo ck L t ! s

s h

o a

M S 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ R! Proposed Valve 94-I-14/ 94-I-14/ 94- I-14/ Blo ck K Block J Block I d-050-L/094-I-14 Blo ck K Block J Blo ck I ! 2-FD 12-WC ! 33-D

! !.KP 40 !

G S 13-WC u a ! k h e n e n ta r e n 14-WC C K l e l h e n o L ic h C R t r 34-D 35-D c e i v h e e ! o k r ! 36-D R ! i v 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 15-WC 94-I-14/ ek 94-I-14/ 94- I-14/ e e r Blo ck F Blo ck G Blo ck H Blo ck F r Blo ck G Blo ck H C 37-D o 94-I-1 4/ h ! c Blo ck E 38-D l i ! K !.! KP 50 ! 40-D ! 16-WC ! ! 42-D 39-D ! 3-FD-1 41-D ! 44-D !! 17-WC

43-D !

94-I-14/ 94-I-14/ 18-WC 94- I-14/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ B lo ck D Blo ck C ! 94-I-14/ Blo ck C Blo ck B Blo ck A Blo ck B Blo ck A M !. KP 60 45-D e t ! C l 46-D h u a t s e a 47-D C h d re o Proposed ! e k a !

Camp Site ! 19-WC C

r d-028-C/094-I-14

e 48-D e

k !

Ho f fa 49-D r d C re ek 50-D ! 51-D 52-D ! ! 94-I-11/ ! 53-D ! Blo ck K ! 56-D 54-D 94-I-12/ 94-I-12/ ! 94-I-11/ 94- I-11/ 94-I-12/ 94-I-11/ 55-D Blo ck K Block J Block I Block L KP 70 !. Block J Blo ck I 58-D ! 57-D !! !. 59-D k KP 71.86 e e Proposed Sierra r C Meter Station h K a b-025-K/094-I-11 y k e k g l o C r e o N k Cr e e Ky k lo FIGURE 1 SCALE: 1: 200,000 Mapped km Area 0 2 4 6 Fort REGIONAL LOCATION OF Nelson High (All Locations Approximate) J Level J WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS ALONG J Rainbow THE NGTL HORN RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT Lake February 2010 6391

! Watercourse Crossing Proposed Hydrostatic Test Pipeline DATA SOURCES: BRITISH AL B E RTA Watercourse Crossing, Fish Bearing Drainage, Drainage: TERA Environmental Consultants 2009; ! Fish Bearing Drainage Existing Pipeline Proposed Valve, Proposed Camp Site, Proposed Meter Station: Midwest Survey 2009; COLUMBIA Pipeline Routing: Proposed Pipeline Route - November 04, 2009; Manning ! Drainage Road Proposed Komie East Extension Pipeline - November 06, 2009; Proposed J Hydrostatic Test Pipeline - November 04, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey); !R Proposed Valve Transmission Line Existing Pipeline: IHS Inc. 2009; Road: GeoBase® 2008; BC Ministry of Environment 2009; Midwest Survey 2009; Peace Fort Proposed Camp Site BC Oil and Gas Commission 2009; BC Crown Registries and Geographic Base Branch 2008; J River Stream/River St. John Transmission Line: BC Ministry of Environment 2009. J Proposed Meter Station Hydrography: IHS Inc. 1996; Lake Park/Protected Area: BC Parks 2006. Dawson High Proposed Pipeline Route Creek J Prairie Park/Protected Area Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate J Proposed Komie East Extension Pipeline this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 6391_ESA_Aquatics_Figure1_Regional_Location_Rev1.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

1.2 Study Area The proposed pipeline route is located on provincial Crown land approximately 70 km east of the town of Fort Nelson in northeast BC. The proposed pipeline crosses traditional lands used by the following First Nation communities: the FNFN; DTFN; and the PRFN.

The proposed pipeline route is located within the Boreal White and Black Spruce (BWBS) Biogeoclimatic (BGC) Zone of BC (BC Ministry of Forests and Range [MOFR] 2006). The BWBS BGC Zone has two main ecosystem types (i.e., upland forests and muskeg). Small productive marsh and shallow lake ecosystems are also found throughout the zone (BC Ministry of Forests [MOF] 1996). Topography is mostly low-lying and flat. Forests along the proposed route are dominated by mixed stands of coniferous and deciduous species. Linear disturbances associated with oil and gas extraction and exploration are common in the area.

The proposed pipeline route lies within the Fort Nelson River and Hay River sub-basins in northeast BC. Watercourses crossed that flow to the Fort Nelson River are located in the Sahtaneh River Watershed Group, while watercourses crossed that flow to the Hay River are located in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group (BC Ministry of Environment [MOE] 2008a). Both the Fort Nelson and Hay rivers eventually drain to the Mackenzie River in the Northwest Territories.

Within the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group, the proposed pipeline route crosses Metlahdoa Creek and several of its tributaries. Metlahdoa Creek flows south for approximately 36 km to its confluence with Kyklo Creek. Kyklo Creek flows east into the Kotcho River, which drains into the Hay River.

Within the Sahtaneh River Watershed Group, the proposed pipeline route crosses Lichen, Moss and Courvoisier creeks, the Sahtaneh River and several unnamed tributaries to these watercourses. Lichen, Moss, and Courvoisier creeks flow southwest to their confluences with the Sahtaneh River. The Sahtaneh River flows northwest for approximately 150 km to its confluence with the Fort Nelson River approximately 30 km north from the town of Fort Nelson.

The Water Survey of Canada maintains a hydrometric station on the Hay River downstream from the study area near the town of Meander River, Alberta (Station No. 070B003) (Environment Canada 2009a). The station records data seasonally from March to October and discharge data from 1974 to 2007 is available. The hydrograph from this station indicates that the high flow period of the river coincides with spring snowmelt. Flows recorded are lowest during March with discharge starting to increase in April and peaking in late May. During an average spring freshet, the Hay River peaks at approximately 93 times its mean March flow level at this station. Flows then gradually drop through the summer and fall (Environment Canada 2009a).

A hydrometric station was also maintained by the Water Survey of Canada on the Fort Nelson River near the town of Fort Nelson (Station No. 10CC001) from 1960 to 1978 (Environment Canada 2009b). The lowest flow levels recorded at this station were during winter from December to March. Discharge increased during the spring starting in April and peaked in June. The hydrograph indicates that peak flows in the Fort Nelson River are dominated by the melting of the snowpack in spring. During an average spring, discharge at this station peaked at approximately 30 times the normal January flow level. After peaking in June, discharge declined through summer, fall and winter (Environment Canada 2009b).

1.3 Fish Community The fish communities in the Sahtaneh River and Kotcho Lake Watershed groups are mixed assemblages containing both coldwater (e.g., salmonids) and coolwater (e.g., percids and esocids) species. Tables 1 and 2 provide lists of the fish species expected to occur within the Sahtaneh River and Kotcho Lake Watershed groups, respectively. One species found in the Sahtaneh River, inconnu, is Blue-listed in BC, indicating that they are considered 'vulnerable' in the province (BC Conservation Data Centre [CDC] 2009). The rest of the fish species historically captured in the Sahtaneh River and Kotcho Lake Watershed groups are Yellow-listed, meaning they are 'apparently secure' (BC CDC 2009). It is important to note that the Arctic grayling population in the Williston watershed are Red-listed; however, the Williston watershed is not located along the proposed pipeline route. Therefore, Arctic grayling

Page 3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391 populations that may occur in the Sahtaneh River and Kotcho Lake Watershed groups are Yellow-listed (BC CDC 2009).

No fish species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) are known to occur within the Sahtaneh River or Kotcho Lake Watershed groups (COSEWIC 2009a). However, inconnu and Arctic grayling populations in BC are high priority candidates and slimy sculpin are mid-priority candidates for a detailed status assessment (COSEWIC 2009b).

Inconnu are native to Arctic drainage basins. In BC, they are restricted to the most northern parts of the province, in the Yukon and Mackenzie River basins. Inconnu populations occur in Teslin Lake (Yukon River Basin) and in the lower Liard, Fort Nelson and Sahtaneh rivers (McPhail 2007, BC MOE 2009a,b). Within the Sahtaneh River Watershed Group inconnu have only been reported at the confluence of the Sahtaneh and Fort Nelson rivers (McPhail 2007, Down 1993). This site is more than 75 km downstream from the study area for this Project. BC does not have a management plan for this species (Anderson pers. comm.).

The life history of inconnu has not been extensively studied in BC; however, data from other areas show that inconnu exhibit both anadromous and freshwater resident life history types (McPhail 2007, Richardson et al. 2001). Although spawning locations are unknown, the occurrence of inconnu in pre and post-spawning conditions in the lower Liard River in BC indicates that inconnu spawn within the province. Before spawning, inconnu migrate upstream and hold in areas of deep water close to their spawning sites. Spawning occurs in the fall from late September to early October; fish move from holding areas to their spawning grounds. Inconnu spawn in flowing water over sand or gravel substrate and there is no site preparation (i.e., they are broadcast spawners). Eggs incubate in the substrate over winter and larvae emerge in the spring (McPhail 2007, Richardson et al. 2001).

Arctic grayling are another coldwater salmonid that occur in the Sahtaneh River Watershed Group. They typically occupy large rivers, small streams and lakes, but are mainly a riverine species in BC. In northern BC, Arctic grayling spawn in the spring from early to late May shortly after ice-out when water temperatures reach 4°C (McPhail 2007). Unlike many other salmonids, Arctic grayling are broadcast spawners and do not construct redds. They are confined to cold and cool water streams, rivers and lakes. Arctic grayling populations are especially sensitive to habitat degradation and angler overharvest (McPhail 2007). However, BC does not have a management plan for Arctic grayling populations within the study area (Anderson pers. comm.).

Page 4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

TABLE 1

FISH SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA WITHIN THE SAHTANEH RIVER WATERSHED GROUP

Common Name Spawning Provincial COSEWIC-Listed (Species Code)1 Scientific Name Season2 Status3 Species4 SPORTFISH Arctic grayling (GR) Thymallus arcticus spring Yellow not listed burbot (BB) Lota lota winter/spring Yellow not listed northern pike (NP) Esox lucius spring Yellow not listed inconnu (IN) Stenodus leucichthys fall Blue not listed walleye (WP) Sander vitreus spring Yellow not listed NON-SPORTFISH trout-perch (TP) Percopsis omiscomaycus spring/summer Yellow not listed longnose sucker (LSU) Catostomus catostomus spring Yellow not listed white sucker (WSU) Catostomus commersoni spring Yellow not listed brook stickleback (BSB) Culaea inconstans spring/summer Yellow not listed slimy sculpin (CCG) Cottus cognatus spring Yellow not listed longnose dace (LNC) Rhinichthys cataractae spring/summer Yellow not listed lake chub (LKC) Couesius plumbeus spring Yellow not listed northern redbelly dace (RDC) Phoxinus eos summer undetermined not listed finescale dace (FDC) Phoxinus neogaeus spring/summer undetermined not listed Sources: 1 McPhail 2007, Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC 2009, BC MOE 2009a,b 2 McPhail 2007 3 BC CDC 2009 4 COSEWIC 2009a

TABLE 2

FISH SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA WITHIN THE KOTCHO LAKE WATERSHED GROUP

Common Name Spawning Provincial COSEWIC-Listed (Species Code)1 Scientific Name Season2 Status3 Species4 SPORTFISH burbot (BB) Lota lota winter/spring Yellow not listed northern pike (NP) Esox lucius spring Yellow not listed walleye (WP) Sander vitreus spring Yellow not listed NON-SPORTFISH trout-perch (TP) Percopsis omiscomaycus spring/summer Yellow not listed longnose sucker (LSU) Catostomus catostomus spring Yellow not listed white sucker (WSU) Catostomus commersoni spring Yellow not listed brook stickleback (BSB) Culaea inconstans spring/summer Yellow not listed lake chub (LKC) Couesius plumbeus spring Yellow not listed finescale dace (FDC) Phoxinus neogaeus spring/summer undetermined not listed Sources: 1 McPhail 2007, Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC 2009, BC MOE 2009a,b 2 McPhail 2007 3 BC CDC 2009 4 COSEWIC 2009a

Page 5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

1.4 Regulatory Requirements Pipeline activities that have the potential to impact fish or fish habitat must be constructed and operated in compliance with the federal Fisheries Act, which is administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Without authorization from DFO, the Fisheries Act prohibits: the destruction of fish; the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat; and the deposition of deleterious substances into waters used by fish. The Fisheries Act also has provisions that: ensure for the safe passage of fish; provide flow of water and passage of fish; require water intakes and diversions to have a fish guard or fish screen; and require proponents to submit plans of specification of their works to DFO for review.

It is the responsibility of the proponent to provide DFO with sufficient information to determine if the proposed works are likely to negatively impact fish and fish habitat (e.g., result in a determination of HADD). If DFO determines that HADD is likely, the works can only proceed after a Fisheries Act authorization is issued to the proponent. The authorization process also generally requires proponents to satisfy DFO's ‘no net loss’ policy by compensating for any HADD that may result from the project. Where DFO determines that a HADD is unlikely to occur, they will issue the proponent a letter of advice (LOA). The LOA typically provides a series of conditions to follow to prevent a HADD.

DFO has issued Operational Statements (OS) for routine reviews of lower risk activities. The OSs outline the conditions and mitigative measures that a proponent must meet to protect fish and fish habitat and remain in compliance with the Fisheries Act.

Under the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), Transport Canada regulates constructed works that could potentially interfere with navigation. Section 108 of the NEB Act requires the proponent to obtain approval from Transport Canada for works across navigable waters.

In BC, the Water Act provides standards and mitigative measures for construction activities that require working in and around water (BC MOE 2008b) and to reduce disturbances to aquatic habitat and fauna that may result from instream activities associated with roads and other pipeline-related operations (BC MOF 2002). Timing windows of least risk for instream activities are used in the Peace Region of BC (BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection [MWLAP] 2004a) as a tool to reduce adverse affects of construction-related disturbances to fish species during sensitive life history stages (Table 3).

TABLE 3

TIMING WINDOWS OF LEAST RISK FOR THE PEACE REGION

Fish Affected Window of Least Risk Both spring and fall spawners or unknown July 15 to August 15 Fall spawners (e.g., bull trout, kokanee and mountain whitefish) June 15 to August 15 Spring spawners (e.g., Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, walleye, July 15 to March 31 minnow species, sucker species, and stickleback species) Anadromous salmon (e.g., chum salmon) Contact DFO for site-specific timing windows Source: BC MWLAP 2004a

Pipeline watercourse crossings on NEB-regulated projects will require either approval from, or notification to the BC MOE under Section 9 of the Water Act and Section 7 of the Water Regulations. The approval process requires proponents to submit an application fee and provide BC MOE with all habitat assessments, designs and plans for the proposed works that are needed to assess the effects of the proposed works on channel stability, flood levels, fish and wildlife resources, and downstream water licenses.

Page 6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

1.5 Scope of Work The scope of the aquatic assessments involved:

• a desktop study and helicopter reconnaissance flight in October 2008 to identify potential watercourse crossings along the proposed route;

• winter aquatic habitat investigations at all of the watercourse crossings. This will include eight watercourse crossings examined in March 2009 to document winter habitat potential for fish at the crossings and conditions at the crossings during the season of expected construction. Winter investigation at the remaining 11 proposed watercourse crossings will be conducted during winter 2010;

• traversing the entire pipeline route on the ground during open water conditions in spring/summer 2009 to confirm whether potential watercourses crossed by the pipeline route have defined bed and banks or are non-classified drainages (NCDs);

• conducting a second season of open water assessments during the summer of 2010 at several proposed watercourse crossings;

• providing written specifications from a biologist (i.e., a Qualified Environmental Professional [QEP]) to minimize the effects of the proposed activities on the aquatic environment;

• documenting fish use, aquatic habitat conditions, fish habitat potential and stream classification in the vicinity of the crossing sites;

• the assistance of local Aboriginal communities to identify, document and incorporate traditional ecological knowledge input into mitigation and crossing method recommendations as appropriate and to help identify fish species and areas that are used by Aboriginal communities; and

• providing environmental regulatory support and liaison.

Page 7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Field Crew Structure and Scheduling An important issue identified by the FNFN, PRFN and DTFN was the need for their participation and contribution to the aquatic environmental field program. This participation request was in alignment with the objectives of the TEK study for the proposed pipeline route, in which shared traditional knowledge would be documented during the aquatic surveys to provide input to the design and execution of biophysical and socio-economic discipline programs. As such, the aquatic study schedule, methods and work plan were shared with the participating Aboriginal communities. Following this, each Aboriginal community chose members to participate in the field work. NGTL and TERA worked to ensure the 2009 aquatic environmental field program was designed to provide First Nation members with the opportunity to provide TEK information to the application.

Field crews were comprised of three TERA personnel and representatives from FNFN, PRFN and DTFN. TERA personnel included two aquatic specialists, one of whom was a QEP and was responsible for leading the aquatic habitat assessments and one TEK facilitator, who was responsible for co-ordinating the participation of First Nation members working with them to collect and document TEK. A meeting with the entire field crew was co-ordinated each morning, to discuss the field plan and locations to be assessed.

During the winter aquatic investigations, Aboriginal community participants included: Jeremy Miller and Curtis Dickie for FNFN; and Robert Metchooyeah, Ernest Chonkolay and Charlie Chissakay for DTFN. No one was available from PRFN to participate at the time of these surveys. The results from the March 2009 will be reported under separate cover with the results of the remaining winter investigations that will be completed in February/March 2010.

Aboriginal community participants during the open water aquatic investigations in 2009 involved: Robert Metchooyeah and Rick Pastion from DTFN; Curtis Dickie, Gavin Dickie and William Needlay from FNFN; and Gabriel Wolf from PRFN. Gabriel Wolf from PRFN participated during the July 16 to 21, 2009 aquatic assessments since members of the PRFN were not available to participate in the May 24 to June 14, 2009 aquatic assessments.

The winter aquatic investigations were conducted in the late winter (i.e., March 11 to 25, 2009) prior to start of the spring snowmelt. Open water aquatic investigations were conducted from May 27 to June 14, 2009 and from July 16 to 21, 2009.

In addition to providing TEK information, Aboriginal community participants held a number of roles which included: assisting the aquatic crew with the collection of winter aquatic habitat and water chemistry data; monitoring flow conditions after the spring snowmelt and communicating flow levels to TERA personnel based in Calgary to help determine when flow conditions were suitable to begin open water field investigations; and assisting the aquatic crew during the open water investigations with a variety of tasks (e.g., setting and retrieving minnow traps, collecting water chemistry data, and assisting during aquatic habitat surveys).

2.2 Fish and Fish Habitat Investigations Along the proposed route, all watercourses as defined by the Fish-stream Identification Guidebook (BC MOF 1998) with defined bed and banks (as determined by the QEP) were assessed. The assessments involved aquatic habitat assessments, fish inventories and the collection of TEK. Sampling protocol for habitat assessments and fish inventories incorporated BC's Resource Information Standards Committee (RISC) standards and procedures (BC MOE 2001). Some data required to meet the RISC standards were collected, but may not be included in this report.

All NCDs lacking defined bed and banks (as determined by the QEP) along the proposed route were also visited. Aquatic surveys were completed at the NCD crossings if the QEP believed fish and fish habitat may be present. NCDs that were visited and had no fish habitat potential were photo documented and their locations (UTM co-ordinates) were recorded.

Page 8

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

2.3 Open Water Aquatic Habitat Assessment Habitat assessment data were collected upstream, within and downstream of the watercourse crossing locations. Most transects were located within the zone of influence (ZOI), either at the watercourse crossing locations or downstream. The length of each study reach (i.e., ZOI) was a minimum of 100 m and data were collected at five transects.

The ZOI is the reach of the stream that is expected to be affected by construction activities associated with a proposed watercourse crossing. The length of the ZOI is determined in the field based on the professional experience and judgement of the QEP who takes into account a variety of factors (e.g., stream gradient, channel width, channel depth, channel morphology, flow velocity and discharge).

At each transect, dominant and sub-dominant substrate types were visually assessed based on substrate sizes listed in Bain and Stevenson (1999). Measurements of bankfull and wetted width, and bank height were recorded to the nearest 0.1 m and water depths were recorded to the nearest centimetre. Bank texture and shape were assessed qualitatively at each transect. Banks were referred to as left and right when facing downstream. Time, date and location (UTM co-ordinates) were also recorded.

Morphological and riparian vegetation characteristics that contribute to fish habitat potential within the study section were described and photo documented. These included channel pattern and characteristics, evidence of flooding and dominant cover types. Macro habitat units throughout the study area were identified according to Bisson et al. (1981) and Alberta Transportation (2001); enumerated and measured for length. Fish habitat was rated according to its potential to support spawning, rearing, wintering and migration for fish. Ratings for wintering habitat potential are from the March 2009 winter surveys for 8 watercourse crossings (sites 12-WC to 19-WC), while wintering habitat potential ratings for the remaining 11 sites (1-WC to 11-WC) are from the open water assessments since winter investigations at the 11 remaining sites have not yet been conducted. Fish habitat was rated hierarchically in decreasing order as 'optimal', 'suboptimal', 'marginal', 'poor' or 'nil'. Fish habitat potential ratings were given to the sportfish species that would most likely be present within the study area of each watercourse crossing.

Water quality parameters were measured at each crossing location where water was present. Discharge was measured with a Swoffer 2100 flow meter, while dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH and water temperature were measured with a YSI 556 Multiple Parameter System digital water quality meter. Turbidity was assessed visually.

2.4 Fish Inventories Fish inventories were conducted on the watercourses and NCDs determined to have fish habitat potential during the May 27 to June 14, 2009 and July 16 to July 21, 2009 assessments. Supplemental information on fish communities were obtained through previous aquatic investigations conducted near the watercourse crossing locations (i.e., Environmental Dynamics Inc. [EDI] 2008), and through the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC (2009) and BC MOE (2009a,b) databases.

Fish communities were sampled, where site conditions permitted, using a Smith-Root Model LR-24 backpack electofisher and baited gee-type minnow traps. Both fish capture and processing were conducted in a manner that ensured maximum survival of fish. Fish captured were identified to species, measured to the nearest millimetre and had their sex and life history stage recorded (if discernable externally). When processing was complete, fish were released back into the habitat from which they were captured. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) was calculated based on the number of fish captured during the time spent actively electrofishing or trapping (i.e., number of fish captured per 100 seconds of electrofishing effort or per hour of minnow trapping effort).

2.5 Vegetation in Riparian Areas The dominant plant species in the riparian area of each watercourse were identified by reviewing recent photos and satellite imagery of the crossing location and, where available, species composition information recorded as part of the rare plant survey conducted for the proposed pipeline route. The

Page 9

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391 approximate density (plants/m2) of woody material (i.e., trees and shrubs) was also determined. Densities are based on visual estimation of the preconstruction density of tree and shrub species.

2.6 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Members of each Aboriginal community observed and assisted during the surveys. In addition, open-ended interviews were conducted at each watercourse crossing to discuss the role of fishing activities for local peoples and cultures, and to document traditional values and observations regarding aquatic aspects of the local and regional landscape. Although other questions were asked at most watercourses, the four questions that were consistently asked of the participants at each watercourse crossing included:

• Would you fish the watercourse?

• What would you use to catch the fish?

• How would you prepare and store the fish?

• Would you eat the fish caught?

Page 10

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results of the assessments conducted at each site are summarized in the following subsections. Site data and photographs for each watercourse crossing site are provided in Appendix 1A.

There were several minor route refinements made in November 2009 to optimize the proposed crossings at the watercourses noted in Table 4. The results in this report are for the crossing locations prior to the route refinements. It will be confirmed if further open water assessments will be required at these sites after the winter 2010 assessments are conducted. The segments of the route that were refined will also be traversed during the winter 2010 assessments to help identify if any additional watercourse crossings exist on the refined route segments.

TABLE 4

PREVIOUS AND NEW WATERCOURSE CROSSING LOCATIONS AFFECTED BY THE ROUTE REFINEMENTS

BC NTS Location UTM Co-ordinates (Zone 10) Distance Between Previous Crossing New Crossing Previous Crossing New Crossing Previous and New Site Watercourse Name Location Location Location Location Locations 4-WC Unnamed tributary to b-100-H/094-P-04 b-100-H/094-P-04 E: 578776 E: 578564 213.5 m Courvoisier Creek N: 6558513 N: 6558534 downstream 6-WC Unnamed tributary to d-040-H/094-P-04 d-040-H/094-P-04 E: 579257 E: 579188 68.8 m Courvoisier Creek N: 6553831 N: 6553832 downstream 10-WC Unnamed tributary to a-057-A/094-P-04 a-057-A/094-P-04 E: 581616 E: 581654 40.1 m Sahtaneh River N: 6545728 N: 6545715 upstream 11-WC Unnamed tributary to c-016-A/094-P-04 c-016-A/094-P-04 E: 581888 E: 581866 51.8 m Sahtaneh River N: 6542598 N: 6542551 downstream 15-WC Sahtaneh River a-034-E/094-I-14 a-034-E/094-I-14 E: 561165 E: 591126 89 m N: 6525779 N: 6525681 downstream

The field crew also documented 62 NCDs that lacked defined bed and banks along the route. Three of the 62 NCDs were found to contain fish or were previously documented as fish-bearing. Site records for the three fish-bearing NCDs are included in Appendix 1B and data summaries for these crossings are included in Tables 6 to 8. Photographs of the remaining 59 NCDs that are nonfish-bearing are presented in Appendix 1C.

3.1 Field Crew Structure A successful partnership was established between TERA and members of FNFN, PRFN and DTFN, allowing for an efficient and accurate field program. For example, the winter work was conducted during sub-zero temperatures, when snow was often deeper than 1 m, and generally involved a caravan of 11 snowmobiles and operators traversing trails from one watercourse crossing to another. First Nation participants were actively involved in outlining access and leading the crew in cutting new trails through extremely deep snow. The excellent co-operation and working relationship from everyone allowed the field crews to overcome any logistical difficulties that were encountered with minimal delays. The participation of Aboriginal communities was also extremely valuable to the scheduling of field programs (e.g., local representative monitored flow conditions in several watercourses during the spring snowmelt which allowed TERA to determine when flow levels became suitable for sampling).

3.2 Watercourse Crossings Aquatic assessments were conducted at 19 watercourse crossing sites along the proposed Cabin Mainline pipeline route during the spring/summer 2009 assessments. No watercourses were identified along the Komie East Extension.

Of the 19 watercourses identified during the spring/summer assessment, 16 were in the Sahtaneh River Watershed Group and 3 were in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group. In the Sahtaneh River Watershed

Page 11

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

Group, named watercourses that will be crossed include: the Sahtaneh River and Lichen, Moss, and Courvoisier creeks. In the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group, no named watercourses will be crossed since Metlahdoa Creek was found to not have defined bed and banks at the proposed pipeline crossing and was identified as a fish-bearing non-classified drainage.

Among the 19 watercourses being crossed, 10 are fish-bearing and 3 are considered nonfish-bearing. The remaining six watercourses are anticipated to be nonfish-bearing, but require another season of fish inventories before they can be designated as nonfish-bearing.

Ten of the 19 watercourses are considered fish-bearing. Fish were captured in 8 of the 10 fish-bearing watercourses (3-WC, 6-WC, 8-WC, 11-WC, 13-WC, 14-WC, 15-WC, and 16-WC) during the spring/summer 2009 assessment. Fish were not captured at sites 10-WC and 12-WC during this study, but have been captured near the crossing location during previous fish sampling (EDI 2008), and are considered fish-bearing. Four of the fish-bearing watercourses (3-WC, 6-WC, 15-WC and 16-WC) are classified as S2 streams which are between 5 m and 20 m wide. Five of the fish-bearing watercourses (8-WC, 11-WC, 12-WC, 13-WC, and 14-WC) are classified as S3 streams which are between 1.5 m and 5 m wide. The remaining fish-bearing watercourse (10-WC) is classified as an S4 stream because it is less than 1.5 m wide.

Three of the watercourses being crossed are considered nonfish-bearing (17-WC, 18-WC and 19-WC). These three watercourses have been classified as S6 streams which are less than or equal to 3 m wide and nonfish-bearing. The classifications for these watercourses are based on: March 2009 survey results; spring/summer 2009 assessment results; previous aquatic assessments conducted near the watercourse crossing locations (EDI 2008); and query results from BC fish databases (Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC 2009 and BC MOE 2009a,b).

At the remaining six watercourses, fish were not captured during the spring/summer 2009 assessments and no fish species have been previously reported near the crossing locations. These watercourse crossings are anticipated to be nonfish-bearing; however, a second season of sampling (i.e., another open water assessment) is required to confirm whether they are nonfish-bearing. If these watercourses are confirmed to be nonfish-bearing they would be classified as S6 streams. If these watercourses are found to be fish-bearing, two (1-WC and 4-WC) would be classified as S3 streams and four (2-WC, 5-WC, 7-WC and 9-WC) would be S4 streams.

Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) have been developed for each stream class in BC's Forest Practices Code (BC MOF 1995). Table 5 provides the RMAs for the stream classes crossed by the Project.

TABLE 5

RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT AREAS FOR STREAM CLASSES OF WATERCOURSES CROSSED

Average Channel Reserve Zone Management Zone Total RMA Stream Class Width (m) Width (m) Width (m) Width (m) S2 (fish-bearing) 5-20 30 20 50 S3 (fish-bearing) 1.5-5 20 20 40 S4 (fish-bearing) <1.5 0 30 30 S6 (nonfish-bearing) <3 0 20 20 Source: BC MOF (1995) 3.2.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment Table 6 provides mean channel characteristics and water quality parameters for each watercourse crossing site. Averages in Table 6 were calculated for channel characteristic measurements (i.e., bankfull width, wetted width, water depth and bank height) recorded at each transect for a mean value of the study area of each watercourse. Site-specific results and photographs for each watercourse crossing assessment are provided in Appendix 1A.

Page 12

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

All watercourses contained water at the time of assessment. Several of the watercourses (12-WC, 13-WC, 14-WC and 16-WC) had poor channel definition at the time of the assessment which may be the result of seasonal high water levels and/or beaver activity. The native channel width was reported for Lichen Creek (16-WC) since beaver activity was present at the crossing location. Discharge at 5 of the 19 watercourse crossings investigated could not be measured since flow velocities were negligible.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2007) guideline for the protection of aquatic life for pH ranges from 6.5 to 9.0. During the open water assessment, pH levels at 2 of the 19 watercourse crossing sites (7-WC and 16-WC) were below the preferred range for the protection of aquatic life (Table 6).

The CCME (2007) guideline for dissolved oxygen for coldwater species (e.g. salmonids) is 9.5 mg/L in early life stages and 6.5 mg/L in other life stages, while for coolwater species (e.g., esocids and percids) the guideline is 6.0 mg/L in early life stages and 5.5 mg/L in other life stages (CCME 2007). Some species (e.g., cyprinid and stickleback species) found in northern climates can tolerate and survive even lower dissolved oxygen levels (Barton and Taylor 1996).

Only one watercourse crossing site (19-WC) met dissolved oxygen level criteria for the protection of early life stages of coldwater species. Dissolved oxygen levels at four of the watercourse crossing locations (10-WC, 16-WC, 17-WC and 18-WC) did not meet the criteria for the protection of all life stages of coldwater species. The remaining 14 watercourses had dissolved oxygen levels able to support life stages other than early life stages of coldwater species (Table 6). Sixteen of the 19 watercourses had sufficient dissolved oxygen levels for coolwater species. The remaining three watercourses (10-WC, 16-WC and 17-WC) did not meet the criteria for the protection of all life stages of coolwater species (Table 6).

3.2.2 Fish Habitat Potential Table 7 summarizes the fish habitat potential ratings for the watercourses that were investigated. Fish habitat potential at these sites was rated for sportfish species that may occur near the crossing locations.

Spawning habitat potential for sportfish species that may occur was rated 'nil' for all watercourses, except at sites 1-WC and 15-WC (Sahtaneh River). Spawning habitat potential at the Sahtaneh River crossing was rated 'poor' for northern pike and 'marginal' for walleye. Spawning habitat potential was rated 'poor' for all sportfish at Site 1-WC. Spawning habitat potential was rated 'marginal' for longnose sucker at sites 3-WC and 6-WC.

Most watercourse crossing sites were rated 'marginal', 'poor', or 'nil' for rearing habitat potential. However, sites 19-WC and 4-WC were rated 'suboptimal', and sites 1-WC (Courvoisier Creek), 11-WC, 15-WC (Sahtaneh River) and 16-WC (Lichen Creek) were rated 'optimal' for rearing habitat potential.

Ratings for wintering habitat potential are from the March 2009 winter surveys for 8 watercourse crossings (sites 12-WC to 19-WC), while wintering habitat potential ratings for the remaining 11 sites (1-WC to 11-WC) are from the open water assessments since winter investigations at the 11 remaining sites have not yet been conducted. Seven of the eight sites that were rated from the March 2009 surveys were rated 'nil' or 'poor' for wintering potential since they were frozen to bottom and/or had poor water quality in frozen conditions. Wintering habitat potential at the Sahtaneh River (15-WC) was rated 'optimal' since there was adequate water quality, depth and flow in frozen conditions.

Wintering habitat potential for the remaining 11 sites was rated during the open water assessments. Seven of the 11 watercourse crossings were rated 'nil' or 'poor' for wintering habitat potential, while the remaining 4 were rated 'marginal' or 'suboptimal'.

Migration habitat potential was rated 'optimal' or 'suboptimal' for sites 1-WC, 3-WC, 4-WC, 6-WC, 13-WC (Moss Creek) and 15-WC (Sahtaneh River) since there were a lack of barriers to fish migration. Migration habitat potential at the remaining watercourse crossings was rated 'marginal' or lower since obstacles including seasonal barriers, beaver dams, drop structures and/or discontinuous sections of channel were present.

Page 13

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND MEAN CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS FOR WATERCOURSES AND FISH-BEARING NON-CLASSIFIED DRAINAGES CROSSED

Mean Mean Mean Mean Dominant Stream Dissolved Bankfull Wetted Water Depth Dominant Subdominant Bank Bank Bank Functional Riparian Riparian Site No. Watercourse Name1 Temp. (°C) Oxygen (mg/L) pH Flow (m³/s) Width (m) Width (m) (cm) Substrate Substrate Height (m) Shape Texture Width (m) Vegetation WATERCOURSES 1-WC Unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek 13.1 9.2 7.3 0.2 2.2 2.2 26 Fines Large gravel Left: 0.9 Both Both fines Both: 30-40 Deciduous Right: 0.7 vertical 2-WC Unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek 10.3 8.7 7.2 0.01 0.6 0.6 13 Fines Small gravel Left: 0.4 Both Both fines Both: 5-10 Deciduous Right: 0.4 vertical 3-WC Courvoisier Creek 14.1 9.0 7.6 1.4 8.0 7.8 61 Fines Large gravel/ Left: 1.6 Both Both fines Left: 5-10 Coniferous cobble Right: 1.5 vertical Right: 10-20 4-WC Unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek 11.3 8.8 6.9 0.3 2.1 2.3 55 Fines n/a Left: 0.8 Both Both fines Both: 5-10 Shrub Right: 0.9 vertical 5-WC Unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek 14.3 7.6 7.9 NR 1.0 1.1 21 Fines Small gravel Left: 0.5 Both Both fines Both: 5-10 Deciduous Right: 0.5 sloping 6-WC Unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek 14.2 8.9 7.1 1.7 5.6 4.8 82 Fines Cobble Left: 1.5 Both Both fines Left: 30-40 Shrub Right: 1.6 vertical Right: 20-30 7-WC Unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek 12.2 9.1 6.3 0.04 0.9 0.8 27 Fines n/a Left: 0.7 Both Both fines Both: 5-10 Grass/shrub Right: 0.6 vertical 8-WC Unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek 16.3 7.9 7.2 0.2 4.3 4.1 38 Fines Small gravel Left: 1.1 Both Both fines Left: 0-5 Deciduous Right: 1.0 vertical Right: 5-10 9-WC Unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek 12.0 7.7 7.4 0.02 1.2 1.1 25 Fines Organics Left: 0.7 Both NR Both: 10-20 Shrub Right: 0.7 vertical 10-WC Unnamed tributary to Sahtaneh River 15.7 4.8 6.9 Negligible 1.2 1.0 9 Fines Organics Left: 0.5 Both Both fines Both: 5-10 Shrub Right: 0.5 sloping 11-WC Unnamed tributary to Sahtaneh River 17.0 7.7 7.1 0.1 2.9 2.2 27 Small gravel Large gravel Left: 0.9 Both Both fines Left: 20-30 Shrub Right: 1.0 vertical Right: 30-40 12-WC Unnamed tributary to Moss Creek 8.9 7.3 7.0 Negligible 1.7 117.5 87 Organics n/a Left: 1.0 Both Both Both: >50 Wetland Right: 0.8 vertical organics 13-WC Moss Creek 7.9 7.8 6.8 Negligible 3.7 50.1 89 Fines Organics Left: 0.8 Both Both Both: >50 Shrub Right: 0.8 vertical organics 14-WC Unnamed tributary to Moss Creek 7.4 6.5 6.8 Negligible 2.4 2.4 87 Organics Fines Left: 0.0 Both Both Both: 5-10 Wetland Right: 0.0 sloping organics 15-WC Sahtaneh River 13.4 7.7 7.2 1.2 8.6 9.3 66 Fines Cobble Left: 1.1 Both Both fines Left:40-50 Grass Right: 1.3 vertical Right: 30-40 16-WC Lichen Creek 6.0 2.9 6.1 Negligible 6.0 (native 5.2 112 Organics n/a n/a Both Both fines Left:5-10 Wetland channel width) sloping Right: 20-30 17-WC Unnamed tributary to Metlahdoa Creek 6.7 4.9 7.1 0.01 1.3 1.1 19 Organics n/a Left: 0.5 Both Both fines Left: 10-20 Mixed forest Right: 0.5 vertical Right: >50 18-WC Unnamed tributary to Metlahdoa Creek 9.4 6.1 7.0 0.02 1.7 1.5 28 Fines Organics Left:0.5 Both Both fines Both: <5 Grass Right: 0.5 vertical 19-WC Unnamed tributary in the Kotcho River 10.0 12.7 8.5 0.02 1.1 0.8 33 Small gravel Organics Left: 0.7 Both Both fines Both: >50 Deciduous Watershed Group Right: 0.7 vertical FISH-BEARING NON-CLASSIFIED DRAINAGES 1-FD Unnamed drainage 13.4 6.8 6.9 NR (pond at n/a 40 73 Fines Fines n/a n/a n/a Both: 5-10 Shrub right-of-way) 2-FD Unnamed drainage 10.6 6.9 6.8 Negligible n/a NR NR NR NR n/a n/a n/a NR Wetland 3-FD Metlahdoa Creek 9.8 6.9 7.1 Negligible n/a 46.4 53 Organics Fines Left: 1.2 Both Both Fines Both: 5-10 Grass Right: 1.4 sloping Notes: 1 The results in this table are for the crossing locations prior to the November 2009 route refinements. Watercourse crossings, 4-WC, 6-WC, 10-WC, 11-WC, and 15-WC have been moved. n/a not applicable NR Not Recorded

Page 14

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL RATINGS

Fish Habitat Potential Rating Site Watercourse Name Fish Species Spawning Rearing Wintering Migration WATERCOURSES 1-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Nil' 'Optimal' Courvoisier Creek 2-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Poor' 'Nil' 'Poor' Courvoisier Creek 3-WC Courvoisier Creek All sportfish 'Nil' 'Optimal' 'Marginal' 'Suboptimal' Longnose sucker 'Marginal' 'Optimal' 'Marginal' 'Suboptimal' 5-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Nil' 'Nil' 'Nil' Courvoisier Creek 6-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Optimal' 'Suboptimal' 'Optimal' Courvoisier Creek Longnose sucker 'Marginal' 'Optimal' 'Suboptimal' 'Optimal' 7-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Poor' 'Nil' 'Marginal' Courvoisier Creek 8-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Poor' Courvoisier Creek 9-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Poor' 'Nil' 'Poor' Courvoisier Creek 10-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Nil' 'Nil' 'Poor' Sahtaneh River 11-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Optimal' 'Marginal' 'Marginal' Sahtaneh River 12-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Poor' 'Nil' 'Poor' Moss Creek 13-WC Moss Creek All sportfish 'Nil' 'Marginal' 'Poor' 'Suboptimal' 14-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Poor' 'Nil' 'Marginal' Moss Creek 15-WC Sahtaneh River Northern pike 'Poor' 'Optimal' 'Optimal' 'Optimal' Walleye 'Marginal' 'Optimal' 'Optimal' 'Optimal' 16-WC Lichen Creek All sportfish 'Nil' 'Optimal' 'Poor' 'Poor' 17-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Nil' 'Nil' 'Nil' Metlahdoa Creek 18-WC Unnamed tributary to All sportfish 'Nil' 'Nil' 'Nil' 'Marginal' Metlahdoa Creek 19-WC Unnamed tributary in the All sportfish 'Nil' 'Suboptimal' 'Nil' 'Marginal' Kotcho Lake Watershed Group FISH-BEARING NON-CLASSIFIED DRAINAGES 1-FD Unnamed drainage All sportfish 'Nil' 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Poor' 2-FD Unnamed drainage All sportfish 'Nil' 'Poor' 'Nil' 'Poor' 3-FD Metlahdoa Creek All sportfish 'Nil' 'Suboptimal' 'Poor' 'Poor'

Page 15

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

3.2.3 Fish Inventories Fish sampling occurred at 19 watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline route (Table 8). No sportfish were captured at any of the watercourses, nor were any provincially-listed species captured.

BC RISC standards (BC MOE 2001) indicate two sampling methods should be used to ensure that sampling covers the range of habitats present in streams. Two methods of fish sampling were used at most sites (i.e., gee-type minnow traps and backpack electrofishing). At some sites, the QEP determined one method of sampling was sufficient, given favourable sampling conditions to effectively sample the fish that may be present. For example, at sites where watercourses were narrow and shallow, electrofishing surveys were sufficient to sample the entire wetted width or allow visual observations of the majority of fish that may have evaded capture.

Electrofishing was conducted at 16 watercourse crossing sites. Minnow trapping was conducted at 12 watercourse crossing sites.

Fish were captured at eight watercourse crossing locations (3-WC, 6-WC, 8-WC, 11-WC, 13-WC, 14-WC, 15-WC and 16-WC). A total of six fish species were captured in the fish-bearing watercourses including white and longnose suckers and several forage fish species (i.e., trout-perch, brook stickleback, finescale dace and northern redbelly dace). These results are consistent with historic fish presence information near the crossing locations (EDI 2008, BC MOE 2009a,b).

3.2.4 Instream Timing Windows Although sportfish were not captured or previously documented near the crossing locations, DFO and BC MWLAP (2004a) Peace Region recognize non-sportfish (e.g., suckers, minnows) in the determination of timing windows of least risk. Based on the presence of spring/summer spawning species (e.g., white sucker and finescale dace), the window of least risk is July 15 to March 31 for all 10 watercourses determined to be fish-bearing (BC MWLAP 2004a).

Based on the March 2009 and spring/summer 2009 assessments and historic data (i.e., EDI 2008 and BC MOE 2009a,b), there are three watercourse crossing sites (17-WC, 18-WC and 19-WC) confirmed to be nonfish-bearing and, therefore, do not have a timing window of least risk.

The remaining six watercourses require a second season of sampling (i.e., another open water assessment) to confirm they are nonfish-bearing. If determined they are nonfish-bearing, they will not have a timing window of least risk. However, if they are found to be fish-bearing, the timing window of least risk for these six watercourses will be from July 15 to March 31, assuming spring/summer spawning species (e.g., white sucker, finescale dace) are captured at these sites.

Page 16

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF FISH SAMPLING RESULTS

Time (s) and No. of Minnow CPUE Distance (m) Traps and Total (fish/100 sec. or No. Fork Length No. Site No. Watercourse Name Electrofished Trap hours fish/trap hour) Fish Species Captured Captured (Range) (mm) Observed1 WATERCOURSES 1-WC Unnamed tributary to 596 s 9 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Courvoisier Creek 200 m 400 hours 2-WC Unnamed tributary to 199 s 2 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Courvoisier Creek 100 m 43 hours 3-WC Courvoisier Creek 433 s 10 traps EF: 0.0 longnose sucker 3 90-114 0 100 m 205 hours MT: 0.2 brook stickleback 1 48 0 finescale dace 15 48-103 0 northern redbelly dace 16 49-100 0 4-WC Unnamed tributary to 526 s 6 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Courvoisier Creek 100 m 126 hours 5-WC Unnamed tributary to 257 s 2 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Courvoisier Creek 80 m 6 hours 6-WC Unnamed tributary to Not 12 traps 1.7 longnose sucker 35 48-125 0 Courvoisier Creek conducted 312 hours finescale dace 480 52-93 0

Page 17 Page 17 northern redbelly dace 21 56-75 0 7-WC Unnamed tributary to 215 s Not 0 none 0 n/a 0 Courvoisier Creek 75 m conducted 8-WC Unnamed tributary to Not 7 traps 2.3 longnose sucker 11 48-125 0 Courvoisier Creek conducted 25 hours finescale dace 39 43-85 0 northern redbelly dace 6 58-79 0 9-WC Unnamed tributary to 266 s 4 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Courvoisier Creek 95 m 80 hours 10-WC Unnamed tributary to 270 s 3 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Sahtaneh River 80 m 66 hours 11-WC Unnamed tributary to Not 9 traps 0.4 brook stickleback 3 53-65 0 Sahtaneh River conducted 171 hours finescale dace 66 53-88 0 northern redbelly dace 6 51-86 0 12-WC Unnamed tributary to 194 s Not 0 none 0 n/a 0 Moss Creek 80 m conducted 13-WC Moss Creek 488 s Not 1.0 northern redbelly dace 5 NR 2 50 m conducted 14-WC Unnamed tributary to 637 s Not 1.6 finescale dace 9 45-83 0 Moss Creek 70 m conducted brook stickleback 1 57 0 15-WC Sahtaneh River 2,012 s Not 0.7 longnose sucker 9 48-231 11 200 m conducted white sucker 1 57 4 trout-perch 1 95 0 finescale dace 2 47-108 320 brook stickleback 1 45 23

TABLE 8 Cont'd

Time (s) and No. of Minnow CPUE Distance (m) Traps and Total (fish/100 sec. or No. Fork Length No. Site No. Watercourse Name Electrofished Trap hours fish/trap hour) Fish Species Captured Captured (Range) (mm) Observed1 16-WC Lichen Creek 143 s Not 8.4 finescale dace 12 NR 48 75 m conducted 17-WC Unnamed tributary of 189 s 2 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Metlahdoa Creek 75 m 37 hours 18-WC Unnamed tributary to 383 s 4 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Metlahdoa Creek 100 m 4 hours 19-WC Unnamed tributary in the 433 s 2 traps 0 none 0 n/a 0 Kotcho Lake Watershed 100 m 6 hours Group FISH-BEARING NON-CLASSIFIED DRAINAGES 1-FD Unnamed drainage Not 2 traps 0.06 finescale dace 11 48-66 0 conducted 24 hours northern redbelly dace 14 46-78 0 2-FD Unnamed drainage Not 9 traps 0.02 brook stickleback 1 48 0 conducted 51 hours 3-FD Metlahdoa Creek 380 s 6 traps EF: 2.9 finescale dace 9 65 6 70 m 9 hours MT: 0.0 brook stickleback 2 NR 0 Notes: 1 Species identification of observed fish that evaded capture was based on assumptions that fish that evaded capture but displayed similar body shape, size, colouration and Page 18 Page 18 swimming patterns, as captured fish were the same species as captured fish. EF electrofishing MT minnow traps n/a not applicable NR not recorded

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

3.3 Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages Three fish-bearing NCDs (1-FD, 2-FD and 3-FD) were identified during the spring/summer assessment. Two of the three fish-bearing NCDs (1-FD and 2-FD) were located in the Sahtaneh River Watershed Group. Metlahdoa Creek (3-FD) was located in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group. The proposed route crosses Metlahdoa Creek in an area where it is a peat-accumulating marsh and lacks defined bed and banks.

Site records for the three fish-bearing NCDs are included in Appendix 1B and data summaries for these crossings are included in Tables 6 to 8.

These crossing sites are NCDs and, therefore, do not have RMAs as outlined in the BC MOF Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF 1995).

3.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment This subsection summarizes the results of the aquatic habitat assessment at the three fish-bearing NCDs along the proposed pipeline route. Aquatic habitat assessments on fish-bearing NCDs were reduced because of the lack of channel definition and habitat features. Some measurements were estimated and others were not taken since the sites lacked channel definition. Table 6 provides site characteristics and water quality parameters for each fish-bearing NCDs investigated. Site-specific data and photographs for each fish-bearing NCD crossing are provided in Appendix 1B.

All fish-bearing NCDs lacked continuously defined bed and banks. These NCDs were influenced by beaver activity, with impoundments comprising most of the sampled reaches, but these reaches were not long enough to justify a higher classification. Riparian vegetation was predominantly wetland or grass vegetation, indicating flooded conditions for much of the open water season.

The pH levels of all three of the fish-bearing NCD crossings were within the preferred range for the protection of aquatic life (CCME 2007). Dissolved oxygen levels at fish-bearing NCD crossings were insufficient for early life stages for coldwater species but met the dissolved oxygen level criteria for the protection for other life stages. Dissolved oxygen levels at fish-bearing NCD crossings were sufficient for all life stages for coolwater species.

3.3.2 Fish Habitat Potential Table 7 identifies the fish habitat potential ratings for the fish-bearing NCDs that were investigated. Fish habitat potential at these sites was rated for sportfish species that may occur near the crossing locations. Wintering ratings for two of the three fish-bearing NCDs (2-FD and 3-FD) are from the March 2009 surveys.

With the exception of 3-FD (Metlahdoa Creek), sportfish habitat potential for spawning, rearing, overwintering and migration was rated 'poor' or 'nil' at all fish-bearing NCDs. Rearing habitat was rated as 'suboptimal' in Metlahdoa Creek. However, these NCDs were found to be depositional environments, lacking habitat structure and coarse substrate, and providing little or no habitat for sportfish species.

3.3.3 Fish Inventories Fish sampling occurred at the three NCDs noted above since previous studies indicated they were fish-bearing, they had connectivity to fish habitat in the vicinity of the crossing site and had good water quality. Other NCDs were not sampled because they lacked connectivity to fish habitat, had poor water quality or water depth was too shallow to justify fish sampling.

Table 8 shows the results of the fish sampling conducted at the fish-bearing NCDs. Fish were captured at all three NCDs sampled. No sportfish were captured at these sites, nor were any provincially-listed species. Three fish species were captured near the crossing sites, all of which are forage species (i.e., brook stickleback, finescale dace, and northern redbelly dace). These results are consistent with historic fish presence information near the crossing locations (EDI 2008).

Page 19

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

Electrofishing was conducted at one site (3-FD) and fish were captured. Fish were captured at all three sites by minnow traps.

3.3.4 Instream Timing Windows Based on the presence of spring/summer spawning fish species, the timing window of least risk for all three fish-bearing NCDs being crossed by the proposed pipeline route is from July 15 to March 31 (BC MWLAP 2004a).

3.4 Vegetation in Riparian Areas Table 9 provides the dominant plant species located within the riparian areas of each watercourse. Dominant riparian area plant types include: shrubs; forbs; trees; grasses; sedges; non-native species; and rare plants. Non-native species were identified at the Sahtaneh River crossing (15-WC) and two unnamed tributaries to Courvoisier Creek (1-WC and 8-WC). Non-native species found included: Norwegian cinquefoil; curled dock and alfalfa.

Page 20

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF DOMINANT RIPARIAN AREA PLANT SPECIES AND DENSITIES ALONG THE HORN RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT

Page 21 Page 21 violet Grass/Sedge: fuzzy-spiked wildrye Rare Plant: western Jacob's-ladder 4-WC Unnamed tributary to S6/S3 S4: July 15 to S6: 20 Left: 5-10 Shrubs: 1.5 Shrub: mountain alder, willow species Courvoisier Creek March 31 S3: 40 Right: 5-10 Forb: meadow horsetail b-100-H/094-P-04 Grass/Sedge: bluejoint reedgrass 5-WC Unnamed tributary to S6/S4 S6: Open S6: 20 Left: 5-10 Shrubs: 0.5 Shrub: mountain alder, red osier-dogwood, high-bush cranberry, Courvoisier Creek S4: 30 Right: 5-10 currant, prickly rose a-060-H/094-P-04 Forb: meadow horsetail, bunchberry, tall bluebells, wild strawberry 6-WC Unnamed tributary to S2 S6: Open 50 Left: 40-50 Trees: at periphery Tree: black spruce Courvoisier Creek Right: 20-30 Shrubs: 0.5 Shrub: willow species d-040-H/094-P-04 Grass/Sedge: sedge species, bluejoint reedgrass 7-WC Unnamed tributary to S6/S4 July 15 to S6: 20 Left: 5-10 Shrubs: <0.25 Shrub: willow species, mountain alder Courvoisier Creek March 31 S4: 30 Right: 5-10 Grass/Sedge: bluejoint reedgrass, fuzzy-spiked wildrye a-030-H/094-P-04 8-WC Unnamed tributary to S3 S4: July 15 to 40 Left: <5 Trees: at periphery Tree: white spruce Courvoisier Creek March 31 Right: 5-10 Shrubs: 0.25 Shrub: mountain alder, willow, high-bush cranberry, northern b-019-H/094-P-04 gooseberry, prickly rose, red raspberry Forb: bunchberry, common mitrewort, sweet coltsfoot, fireweed, northern golden-saxifrage, marsh yellow cress, yellow avens, floating marsh-marigold, cuckoo bitter-cress, purple-leaved willowherb, marsh skullcap Grass/Sedge: fowl bluegrass, bluejoint reedgrass, little meadow- foxtail Non-native species: Norwegian cinquefoil 9-WC Unnamed tributary to S6/S4 S6: Open S6: 20 Left: 10-20 Trees: 0.25 Tree: trembling aspen Courvoisier Creek S4: 30 Right: 10-20 Shrubs: 1 Shrub: willow species, high-bush cranberry, mountain alder, prickly c-009-H/094-P-04 rose Forb: fireweed, meadow horsetail, wood horsetail Grass/Sedge: bluejoint reedgrass

TABLE 9 Cont'd

Instream Work Riparian Riparian Estimated Density Waterbody Name and Stream Window of Management Area Width of Woody Material Site No. BC NTS Location Class1 Least Risk2 Area (m)1 (m) (/m2) Dominant Riparian Area Plant Species3, 4 10-WC Unnamed tributary to S4 July 15 to 20 Left: 5-10 Shrubs: 1 Shrub: willow species, currant Sahtaneh River March 31 Right: 5-10 Forb: coltsfoot, violet a-057-A/094-P-04 Grass/Sedge: bluejoint reedgrass 11-WC Unnamed tributary to S3 July 15 to 40 Left: 20-30 Shrubs: 1 Shrub: willow species Sahtaneh River March 31 Right: 30-40 Forb: meadow horsetail, fireweed c-016-A/094-P-04 Grass/Sedge: sedge species 12-WC Unnamed tributary to S3 July 15 to 40 Left: >50 Shrubs: 1 Shrub: willow species, mountain alder Moss Creek March 31 Right: >50 Forb: marsh cinquefoil, long-leaved starwort, small bedstraw d-040-L/094-I-14 Grass/Sedge: sedge species, bluejoint reedgrass Rare Plant: western Jacob's-ladder, Iowa golden-saxifrage 13-WC Moss Creek S3 July 15 to 40 Left: >50 Shrubs: 0.5 Shrub: willow species c-097-E/094-I-14 March 31 Right: >50 Forb: common cattail Grass/Sedge: sedge species 14-WC Unnamed tributary to S3 July 15 to 40 Left: 5-10 Trees: at periphery Tree: black spruce Moss Creek March 31 Right: 5-10 Shrubs: 0.25 Shrub: willow species, red-osier dogwood d-087-E/094-I-14 Grass/Sedge: sedge species 15-WC Sahtaneh River S2 July 15 to 50 Left: 40-50 Trees: at periphery Tree: black spruce a-034-E/094-I-14 March 31 Right: 30-40 0.75 Shrub: mountain alder, willow species, black gooseberry Page 22 Page 22 Shrubs: 0.25 Forb: stinging nettle, sweet-scented bedstraw, small yellow water- buttercup, field mint, hemlock water-parsnip, willowherb species, long-stalked starwort, marsh yellow cress, marsh cinquefoil, swamp hedge-nettle, tufted loostrife, narrow-leaved bur-reed, marsh skullcap, wood horsetail Grass/Sedge: bluejoint reedgrass, water sedge, small-flowered bulrush, little meadow-foxtail, American sloughgrass, sedge species, northern clustered sedge, Dewey's sedge, beaked sedge Non-native species: Norwegian cinquefoil, curled dock, alfalfa 16-WC Lichen Creek S2 July 15 to 50 Left: 5-10 Shrubs: < 0.25, Shrub: willow species c-011-E/094-I-14 March 31 Right: 20-30 sparsely distributed Forb: common cattail Grass/Sedge: sedge species 17-WC Unnamed tributary to S6 Open 20 Left: 10-20 Trees: at periphery Tree: black spruce Metlahdoa Creek Right: >50 0.75 Shrub: willow species c-065-C/094-I-14 Shrubs: 0.5 Grass/Sedge: sedge species, bluejoint reedgrass 18-WC Unnamed tributary to S6 Open 20 Left: <5 Trees: at periphery Tree: white spruce Metlahdoa Creek Right: <5 0.25 Shrub: willow species c-044-C/094-I-14 Shrubs: .25 Forb: smartweed, sweet-scented bedstraw, cinquefoil species Grass/Sedge: sedge species, spike rush species 19-WC Unnamed tributary in the S6 Open 20 Left: >50 Shrubs: 1.5 Shrub: willow species, mountain alder, prickly rose Kotcho Lake Watershed Right: >50 Forb: meadow horsetail Group a-014-C/094-I-14 Notes: 1 BC MOF Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF 1995) 2 BC MWLAP (2004a) 3 Common names have been provided; see BC CDC (2009) and NatureServe (2009) for scientific names 4 Results for crossings 4-WC, 6-WC, 10-WC, 11-WC and 15-WC are for the crossing locations prior to the November 2009 route refinements.

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

3.5 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Results During the TEK field work, members of FNFN, PRFN and DTFN noted that the most important fish species of traditional economic value for food and cultural well-being include northern pike, walleye, and whitefish, followed by sucker species and burbot.

The communities have identified traditional fishing activities which follow a seasonal round, where fishing occurs on lakes in winter, in rivers and their mouths during the spring, lakes and rivers in the summer and specific stream reaches during fall migrations. The DTFN Traditional Land Use report (Calliou Group 2009) indicates that in the past the best time of year to go fishing is in October when the ice is not too thick. It was also reported that people would set nets in the rivers in the summer and any watercourse may be used for fishing.

Traditional fishing methods that have been used in the past include the construction of fish weirs and use of nets, spears and hook and line. Modern methods include jigging at lakes in the winter and angling in the spring, summer and fall. FNFN and DTFN fish for subsistence reasons, as well as to teach the youth and maintain cultural traditions among the youth. Although the specific context of each watercourse crossing differed, representatives from both communities noted that fishing activities are not practiced at beaver ponds and associated wetland complexes.

During the aquatic study of Sahtaneh River, both sucker and minnow species were captured; however, no sportfish were caught. Members of FNFN and DTFN actively fish the Sahtaneh River, upstream and downstream from the proposed pipeline crossing. Traditionally gill nets would have been used; now angling is done with modern fishing poles. Fish would be smoked or dried, while minnows would generally be used for bait. During times of famine, minnows would also be cooked and eaten in a soup. During the winter months, a successful catch would be stored in the snow and used by the community when needed.

Courvoisier Creek was also noted as an active fishing location by the FNFN and DTFN. This creek is harvested for subsistence and minnows are taken for bait. In the past, traditional gill nets and weirs would have been used, while fishing poles are currently preferred. DTFN field crew members identified that although an unnamed tributary of Courvoisier Creek (i.e., 4-WC) had brook stickleback and two species of minnow, it was not an area that their members would spend time fishing, but it could be fished in times of hunger. Traditional nets and weirs could be constructed to catch minnows, which would be eaten on site, most likely in a soup.

Among the 19 watercourse and 62 NCD crossings investigated, Aboriginal communities have requested that trenchless crossing methods be used at Courvoisier Creek (3-WC) and the Sahtaneh River (15-WC). NGTL should continue to work with Aboriginal communities to explain the potential effects associated with the crossing methodologies and discuss appropriate mitigation prior to the public hearing.

Page 23

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended pipeline, vehicle and equipment crossing methods and RMAs are provided in the following subsections for all watercourse and NCD crossings. Table 10 summarizes the recommended pipeline, vehicle and equipment crossing methods for all watercourses and fish-bearing NCDs. Table 11 summarizes the recommended pipeline, vehicle and equipment crossing methods for all nonfish-bearing NCDs assessed in spring/summer 2009. Figure 2 summarizes the fish use, fish spawning habitat, and the DFO regulatory process for all watercourses and fish-bearing NCDs.

4.1 Recommended Crossing Methods for Watercourses Pending regulatory approval, construction of the pipeline is expected to begin in Q4 2011 and construction of all watercourse crossings will be completed during frozen ground conditions.

The proposed construction right-of-way will be 32 m wide, with additional temporary workspace required at select locations to accommodate construction activities (e.g., roads, watercourse crossings, sharp sidebends, steep sidehill, log decking sites, etc.). NGTL will also require areas for material staging and stockpiling, and equipment storage.

4.1.1 Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods Trenched crossing methods are recommended for all 19 watercourse crossings (Table 10). Isolated trenched methods are recommended at all of these watercourses if they are flowing at the time of construction, while open cut methods are recommended if the watercourses are dry or frozen to bottom at the time of construction.

Ten of these 19 watercourses (3-WC, 6-WC, 8-WC, 10-WC, 11-WC, 12-WC, 13-WC, 14-WC, 15-WC and 16-WC) are fish-bearing streams and will require case-specific review by DFO if flow is present at the time of construction and isolation methods are to be used. If these 10 crossing sites are frozen to bottom or dry, a trenched open cut pipeline method will require notification to DFO under the OS for Dry Open- Cut Crossings (DFO 2008a). Crossings requiring notification will need to be constructed to meet all the conditions and mitigative measures discussed in this OS.

The results of the aquatic habitat assessments indicated that fish habitat values at Courvoisier Creek (3-WC), unnamed tributary to Courvoisier Creek (6-WC), unnamed tributary to Sahtaneh River (11-WC) and the Sahtaneh River (15-WC) were greater than at the other 15 watercourses. The QEP who led the field investigations believes fish habitat values at these crossings can be maintained without negatively affecting the productivity of the aquatic environment by using an isolated crossing method. Only coarse and forage fish species were captured in the vicinity of crossing locations, no species of management concern were captured and spawning habitat potential ratings were ‘nil’ to ‘marginal’. Isolated crossing methods for these four watercourses have been recommended, based on the conditions that:

• engineering and construction expertise will be used to ensure the site can be adequately restored so that the crossing will not become a chronic source of sediment inputs;

• site-specific reclamation plans for each of these four crossings will be developed and submitted with the request for case-specific review package to DFO; and

• the reclamation plan and recommended mitigation measures have a high likelihood of being successfully implemented.

Examples of features that may be appropriate for the site-specific reclamation plans include restoring riparian vegetation in disturbed and adjacent areas and restoring disturbances to the bed and banks. In addition to disturbed riparian areas, adjacent riparian areas should be restored at approximately a 2:1 ratio (e.g., for every 1 m2 of riparian area disturbed planting should occur in 2 m2 in nearby riparian areas). Field investigations scheduled for the open water season of 2010 should include a site visit to each of these sites so that the QEP can develop a detailed set of recommendations for the reclamation plans at these sites. Any addition of instream structures to enhance habitat at these crossing sites will

Page 24

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391 need to be discussed with appropriate provincial and federal regulatory agencies, including Transport Canada for the Sahtaneh River (15-WC) crossing.

It should also be noted that subsidence is occurring on the Sahtaneh River bank at the existing pipeline crossing (constructed in 1975/76) adjacent to the proposed crossing (Appendix 1A). Proper backfilling and bank reclamation practices should be able to avoid a similar problem from occurring after the proposed crossing is constructed.

Should trenchless crossing methods be required at any of the crossings, notifications under DFO's OS for Directional Drilling (DFO 2008b) or Punch and Bore Crossings (DFO 2008c) will need to be submitted to DFO.

Results of the TEK indicated that Courvoisier Creek (3-WC) and the Sahtaneh River (15-WC) are two watercourses that the Aboriginal communities currently use for subsistence harvesting. Aboriginal communities have requested that trenchless crossing methods be used at Courvoisier Creek (3-WC) and the Sahtaneh River (15-WC). NGTL should continue to work with Aboriginal communities to discuss the positive and negative effects associated with different crossing methodologies and discuss appropriate mitigation prior to the public hearing.

Three watercourses (17-WC, 18-WC, and 19-WC) were determined to be nonfish-bearing S6 streams. These streams do not provide fish habitat and, therefore, do not require case-specific review by DFO. However, mitigative measures outlined in: the BC MOF Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (BC MOF 2002); Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (BC MWLAP 2004b); and the DFO OS for Dry Open-Cut Crossings (DFO 2008a) should be implemented at these sites.

The remaining six watercourses (1-WC, 2-WC, 4-WC, 5-WC, 7-WC and 9-WC) still require a second season of sampling (i.e., another open water assessment) in order to confirm that they are nonfish-bearing. If these sites are determined to be nonfish-bearing, they will not require case-specific review by DFO. However, if they are determined to be fish-bearing, the recommended pipeline crossing method will be trenched with isolation and a case-specific review will be required by DFO.

Two alternative pipeline crossing methods are recommended for all nonfish-bearing watercourses, if flow is encountered at the time of construction. Either isolated trenched or open cut crossing methods can be used at these sites, if water is present, since conditions at these sites do not require isolation methods to protect existing aquatic habitat values. If open cut methods are used at these sites, precautions will be needed to ensure that the potential for downstream sediment transport is minimized (e.g., construction should only occur during low flow conditions, all equipment and resources needed to complete the crossing should be onsite before instream construction begins to ensure the time needed to complete the crossing is minimized, appropriate sediment and erosion controls should be used on the banks, appropriate bank reclamation should be undertaken immediately after the crossing is completed). Open cut methods can also be applied at these sites if they are dry or frozen to bottom, at the time of construction.

Pipeline watercourse crossings on NEB-regulated projects also require an application to BC MOE under Section 9 of the Water Act.

Page 25

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

TABLE 10

SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE AND FISH-BEARING NON-CLASSIFIED DRAINAGE CROSSINGS ALONG THE HORN RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT

Instream Mean Fish Species Recommended Contingency Recommended UTM Work Riparian Bankfull Captured During Fish Species Previously Pipeline Pipeline Vehicle/Equipment Waterbody Name and BC Co-ordinates Stream Window of Management Width Spring/Summer 2009 Documented Near the Location of Nearest Known Crossing Crossing Crossing Method Site No. NTS Location (Zone 10) Class1 Least Risk2 Area (m)1 (m) Sampling Crossing Location3 Fish Habitat3,4 Method Method (Frozen Conditions) Comments WATERCOURSES5 1-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 576244 S6/S3 S6: Open S6: 20 2.2 none none brook stickleback and Isolate if water None Existing access If existing access not possible to use, Courvoisier Creek N: 6565498 S3: July 15 to S3: 40 finescale dace captured present, open snowfill/Ice bridge/logfill/clear span d-064-J/094-P-04 March 31 downstream in an unnamed cut if dry/frozen bridge recommended. watercourse (confluence to bottom >5 km downstream) 2-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 578223 S6/S4 S6: Open S6: 20 0.6 none none brook stickleback and Isolate if water None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge/logfill Courvoisier Creek N: 6563028 S4: July 15 to S4: 30 finescale dace captured present, open recommended in open water d-031-J/094-P-04 March 31 downstream in an unnamed cut if dry/frozen conditions. watercourse (confluence to bottom >5 km downstream) 3-WC Courvoisier Creek E: 578568 S2 July 15 to 50 8.0 longnose sucker, white sucker, brook Within the crossing Isolate if water None Existing access If existing access not possible to use, c-100-H/094-P-04 N: 6559323 March 31 brook stickleback, stickleback, finescale dace, right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open snowfill/Ice bridge/clear span bridge finescale dace, lake chub, longnose dace, cut if dry/frozen recommended. northern redbelly dace northern redbelly dace, slimy to bottom sculpin 4-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 578776 S6/S3 S6: Open S6: 20 2.1 none none white sucker, brook Isolate if water None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge/logfill Courvoisier Creek N: 6558513 6 S3: July 15 to S3: 40 stickleback, finescale dace, present, open recommended in open water b-100-H/094-P-04 March 31 and slimy sculpin captured cut if dry/frozen conditions. downstream in Courvoisier to bottom Creek (confluence approx. 4.5 km downstream) 5-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 579139 S6/S4 S6: Open S6: 20 1.0 none none white sucker, brook Isolate if water None Existing access If existing access not possible to use, Courvoisier Creek N: 6555246 S4: July 15 to S4: 30 stickleback, finescale dace, present, open snowfill/Ice bridge/logfill/clear span a-060-H/094-P-04 March 31 and northern redbelly dace cut if dry/frozen bridge recommended. captured downstream in an to bottom unnamed watercourse (confluence approx. 3.7 km downstream) 6-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 579257 S2 July 15 to 50 5.6 longnose sucker, white sucker, brook Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/ ice bridge Clear span bridge recommended in Courvoisier Creek N: 6553831 6 March 31 finescale dace, stickleback, finescale dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open open water conditions. d-040-H/094-P-04 northern redbelly dace cut if dry/frozen to bottom 7-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 579313 S6/S4 S6: Open S6: 20 0.9 none none white sucker, brook Isolate if water None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge/logfill Courvoisier Creek N: 6552336 S4: July 15 to S4: 30 stickleback, finescale dace, present, open recommended in open water a-030-H/094-P-04 March 31 and northern redbelly dace cut if dry/frozen conditions. captured downstream in an to bottom unnamed watercourse (confluence >5 km downstream) 8-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 579412 S3 July 15 to 40 4.3 longnose sucker, brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Existing access If existing access not possible to use, Courvoisier Creek N: 6551126 March 31 finescale dace, dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open snowfill/Ice bridge/clear span bridge b-019-H/094-P-04 northern redbelly dace cut if dry/frozen recommended. to bottom 9-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 579508 S6/S4 S6: Open S6: 20 1.2 none none brook stickleback and Isolate if water None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge/logfill Courvoisier Creek N: 6550685 S4: July 15 to S4: 30 finescale dace captured present, open recommended in open water c-009-H/094-P-04 March 31 downstream in an unnamed cut if dry/frozen conditions. watercourse (confluence to bottom >5 km downstream) 10-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 581616 S4 July 15 to 20 1.2 none brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge/logfill Sahtaneh River N: 6545728 6 March 31 dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open recommended in open water a-057-A/094-P-04 cut if dry/frozen conditions. to bottom 11-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 581888 S3 July 15 to 40 2.9 brook stickleback, brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge recommended in Sahtaneh River N: 6542598 6 March 31 finescale dace, dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open open water conditions. c-016-A/094-P-04 northern redbelly dace cut if dry/frozen to bottom

Page 26

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

TABLE 10 Cont'd

Instream Mean Fish Species Recommended Contingency UTM Work Riparian Bankfull Captured During Fish Species Previously Pipeline Pipeline Vehicle/Equipment Waterbody Name and BC Co-ordinates Stream Window of Management Width Spring/Summer 2009 Documented Near the Location of Nearest Known Crossing Crossing Crossing Method Site No. NTS Location (Zone 10) Class1 Least Risk2 Area (m)1 (m) Sampling Crossing Location3 Fish Habitat3,4 Method Method (Frozen Conditions) Comments 12-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 586644 S3 July 15 to 40 1.7 none brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/Ice bridge Previous studies indicate fish Moss Creek N: 6535014 March 31 dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open captured near crossing location. Clear d-040-L/094-I-14 cut if dry/frozen span bridge recommended in open to bottom water conditions. 13-WC Moss Creek E: 588633 S3 July 15 to 40 3.7 northern redbelly dace brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/Ice bridge Clear span bridge recommended in c-097-E/094-I-14 N: 6531698 March 31 dace, white sucker right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open open water conditions. cut if dry/frozen to bottom 14-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 589035 S3 July 15 to 40 2.4 brook stickleback, brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/Ice bridge Clear span bridge recommended in Moss Creek N: 6530458 March 31 finescale dace dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open open water conditions. d-087-E/094-I-14 cut if dry/frozen to bottom 15-WC Sahtaneh River E: 591165 S2 July 15 to 50 8.6 brook stickleback, brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Clear span bridge Existing crossing adjacent to the right- a-034-E/094-I-14 N: 6525779 6 March 31 finescale dace, dace, white sucker right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open of-way shows subsidence at trench longnose sucker, white cut if dry/frozen line with river channel. Isolated sucker, trout perch to bottom construction and bank reclamation plan should avoid similar subsidence issue. 16-WC Lichen Creek E: 593153 S2 July 15 to 50 6 finescale dace brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge recommended in c-011-E/094-I-14 N: 6524109 March 31 (native dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open open water conditions channel cut if dry/frozen width) to bottom 17-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 597664 S6 Open 20 1.3 none none brook stickleback previously Open cut None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge/logfill Metlahdoa Creek N: 6519500 captured approx. 3.7 km recommended in open water c-065-C/094-I-14 downstream in the same conditions. watercourse 18-WC Unnamed tributary to E: 598256 S6 Open 20 1.7 none none brook stickleback previously Open cut None Snowfill/ice bridge Crossing location rerouted after winter Metlahdoa Creek N: 6517715 captured downstream in an survey. Clear span bridge/logfill c-044-C/094-I-14 unnamed watercourse recommended in open water (confluence approx. 4 km conditions. downstream) 19-WC Unnamed tributary in the E: 598780 S6 Open 20 1.1 none none Unable to determine Open cut None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge/logfill Kotcho Lake Watershed N: 6514675 recommended in open water Group a-014-C/094-I-14 conditions. FISH-BEARING NON-CLASSIFIED DRAINAGES 1-FD Unnamed drainage E: 582657 n/a July 15 to n/a n/a finescale dace, none Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/ice bridge Clear span bridge recommended in c-005-A/094-P-04 N: 6541508 March 31 northern redbelly dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open open water conditions. cut if dry/frozen to bottom 2-FD Unnamed drainage E: 586693 n/a July 15 to n/a n/a brook stickleback brook stickleback Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/Ice bridge Clear span bridge recommended in a-030-L/094-I-14 N: 6533995 March 31 right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open open water conditions. cut if dry/frozen to bottom 3-FD Metlahdoa Creek E: 596718 n/a July 15 to n/a n/a brook stickleback, brook stickleback, finescale Within the crossing Isolate if water None Snowfill/Ice bridge Clear span bridge recommended in b-086-C/094-I-14 N: 6521093 March 31 finescale dace dace right-of-way and/or ZOI present, open open water conditions. cut if dry/frozen to bottom

Notes: 1 BC MOF Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF 1995). 2 BC MWLAP (2004a). 3 (BC MOE 2009a,b, EDI 2008). 4 Approximate distance to nearest watercourse, or location in the sampled watercourse, known to contain fish. 5 The results in this table are for the crossing locations prior to the November 2009 route refinements. Watercourse crossings, 4-WC, 6-WC, 10-WC, 11-WC, and 15-WC have been moved; see Section 3.1 and Table 4 of this report. 6 Previous crossing UTM co-ordinates for watercourse crossings prior to the November 2009 route refinements are provided, see Table 4 for new crossing UTM co-ordinates.

Page 27

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

TABLE 11

SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE CROSSINGS ALONG THE HORN RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT

Site UTM Co-ordinates1 Recommended Pipeline Vehicle and Equipment Crossing No. BC/NTS Location Zone 10 (NAD 83) Crossing Method Dry/Open Water Frozen 1-D B-063-J/094-P-04 576500 6565193 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 2-D D-053-J/094-P-04 576854 6564764 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 3-D A-041-J/094-P-04 578160 6563120 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 4-D B-041-J/094-P-04 578077 6563212 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 5-D C-040-I/094-P-04 578525 6562671 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 6-D A-070-H/094-P-04 579063 6555902 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 7-D A-060-H/094-P-04 579154 6555132 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 8-D D-050-H/094-P-04 579211 6554502 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 9-D A-040-H/094-P-04 579274 6553186 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 10-D A-040-H/094-P-04 579299 6553032 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 11-D A-040-H/094-P-04 579299 6552952 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 12-D D-030-H/094-P-04 579307 6552903 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 13-D D-030-H/094-P-04 579311 6552851 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 14-D D-030-H/094-P-04 579321 6552614 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 15-D A-030-H/094-P-04 579342 6552160 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 16-D A-030-H/094-P-04 579354 6552037 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 17-D D-020-H/094-P-04 579379 6551722 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 18-D D-020-H/094-P-04 579399 6551555 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 19-D B-009-H/094-P-04 579654 6550339 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 20-D C-099-A/094-P-04 579726 6550153 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 21-D C-099-A/094-P-04 579791 6549978 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 22-D A-087-A/094-P-04 581266 6548538 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 23-D D-077-A/094-P-04 581402 6548334 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 24-D D-077-A/094-P-04 581621 6547967 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 25-D B-076-A/094-P-04 581782 6547706 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 26-D B-076-A/094-P-04 581940 6547460 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 27-D D-066-A/094-P-04 582042 6547057 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 28-D C-046-A/094-P-04 581771 6545224 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 29-D D-037-A/094-P-04 581643 6544498 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 30-D D-095-I/094-I-13 582956 6540762 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 31-D A-083-I/094-I-13 584654 6539124 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 32-D C-061-I/094-I-13 585619 6538030 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 33-D D-009-L/094-I-14 587623 6532627 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 34-D D-056-E/094-I-14 589749 6528099 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 35-D D-056-E/094-I-14 589819 6527860 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 36-D B-055-E/094-I-14 590124 6527189 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 37-D C-023-E/094-I-14 591679 6524999 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 38-D C-011-E/094-I-14 593079 6524247 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 39-D A-011-E/094-I-14 593565 6523758 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 40-D D-010-F/094-I-14 594316 6523235 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 41-D B-008-F/094-I-14 595180 6522882 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 42-D A-098-C/094-I-14 595586 6522051 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 43-D D-076-C/094-I-14 597033 6520738 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 44-D D-076-C/094-I-14 597221 6520556 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 45-D A-034-C/094-I-14 598589 6516368 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 46-D D-014-C/094-I-14 598679 6515175 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 47-D D-014-C/094-I-14 598645 6514897 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 48-D D-094-K/094-I-11 598919 6513176 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 49-D D-074-K/094-I-11 598994 6511208 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 50-D A-074-K/094-I-11 599015 6510861 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 51-D C-063-K/094-I-11 599133 6510655 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge 52-D C-063-K/094-I-11 599207 6510443 Open cut Logfill/Swamp mats Snowfill/ice bridge

Page 28

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

TABLE 11 Cont'd

Page 29

94- P- 5/ 94- P- 5/ 94- P- 5/ 94- P- 6/ 94- P- 6/ 94- P- 6/ 94- P- 6/ Blo ck C Blo ck A Blo ck B Blo ck A Blo ck B t C r e e k Blo ck D Blo ck C n d FISH SYMBOL LEGEND B r a

1 2 !(5 Proposed Cabin 4 3

Texaco | O u t a a n e td e y

Meter Station Section 1: Fish Use (Based on Fish Captures and ExistingL a Datak e )

Lakes c-74-J/94-P-4 No fish presence Green r Proposed Komie East 1-WC !( 94- P- 3/ Yellow Only non-sportfish species present r Meter Station Blo ck K Orange Sportfish species present

94- P- 4/ !! d-048-I/94-P-04 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/

Red Provincially and/or federally-listed fish species at risk present Blo ck K r Blo ck L Alternative Option Blo ck J Blo ck I r| 2-WC r !( 94- P- 4/ r Ca b in Section 2: DFO Review Process for Preferred Pipeline and Block I Access Crossing Methods K 94- P- 4/ La k e o

!! Green All Recommended crossing techniques would be constrt ucted Block J under a DFO Operational Statement and all impactsc should be

r mitigable h r| o

si e r o i C One or more of the recommended crossing activities will require r r

r v e Yellow R

C o u e k 3-WC a case-specific review, but all of the impacts should be mitigable

r i Preferred Option One or more of the recommended crossing activities vwill require r Red 4-WC !( a case-specific review and mitigation alone is not expectede to ensure r ! ! r no net loss of productive capacity of fish habitat

!( r Me a o u li e

r| No DFO review process required for recommended crossing

!! No Colour techniques since watercourse is non fish-bearing. La k e

r Section 3: DFO Review Process for Contingency Pipeline

5-WCr and Access Crossing Techniques 6-WCr !! r Green All contingency crossing techniques would be constructed !( under a DFO Operational Statement and all impacts should

r be mitigable

94- P- 4/ r| !! 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 4/ 94- P- 3/ One or more of the contingency crossing activities will

r Yellow Blo ck F Blo ck G r| Blo ck E Blo ck F Blrequireo ck a Gcase-specific review, but all of Bthel oimpackcts H 94- P- 4/

r !( should be mitigable 7-WC

r Blo ck H Red One or more of the contingency crossing activities will require a case-specific review and mitigation alone is not expected

! ! !( to ensure no net less of productive capacity of fish habitat 8-WC r r No contingency proposed at this crossing location or no DFO r r| No Colour review process required for contingency crossing techniques since

!( watercourse is non fish-bearing.

!! !( r r| r Section 4: Spawning Habitat Potential

9-WCr Green NotK ofisht c habitath o !! Yellow SpawningLa k e habitat potential (for one or more sportfish species rated as 'marginal' or lower

r Kotcho Lake

r| Spawning habitat potential (for one or more sportfish species Orange

rated as 'sub-optimal') Ecological Reserve Spawning habitat potential (for one or more sportfish species r Red 10-WC rated as 'optimal') r

!( 94- P- 4/ 94- P- 4/ !! 94- P- 4/ 94- P- 3/ 94- P- 3/ Section 5: British Columbia Stream Riparian9 4Class- P- 3/

Blo ck B r Blo ck A S4, fish bearing <1.5 m wide Blo ck C r| Blo ck D Blo ck C Green Blo ck A 11-WCr Yellow S3, fish bearing 1.5-5 m wide r

!! Orange S2, fish bearing >5-20 m wide

Red 94-S1,P- fish3 /bearing >20 m wide Kotcho Lake

!( r| r Blo ck B No Colour S5 or S6, non fish-bearing, or fish-bearingVillage NCD Site Park 1-FD r !( r

! r ! e v

r i r| R k e h e e r n

C a

t s

s h

94-I-13/ o a M S

Block I 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-14/ 94- I-14/ r R! Proposed Valve 94-I-14/

12-WCr

Blo ck K Block J d-050-L/094-I-14 Blo ck K Block J Blo ck I

!! !( r 94-I-14/ r|r !(

2-FDr Block L

r r| r !(

13-WCr

G S

u a !! !( k n h e

r e n t r r a r| K e n 14-WCr C l e l h e n o L ic h C R t r i !! c e v e h e k r r o r| R

94-I-14 / i v

94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-14/ ek 94-I-14/ 94- I-14/ e r

Blo ck G Blo ck E re Blo ck H Blo ck F Blo ck H Blo ck F C Blo ck G o r h

!( c 15-WC r

l i

!( r r 3-FD r r| 16-WC r r !!

!! r| r

r| r

r 17-WC r

r 18-WC r !( !! !! r r| r| r 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-13/ 94-I-14/ 94-I-14/ 94- I-14/ 94-I-14/ !( Blo ck C Blo ck B Blo ck A B lo ck D Blo ck B Blo ck A

M Blo ck C

t l C a h u a t s e r C h d 19-WC r re o Proposed e k a !( !

C Camp Site ! r r

e D-28-C/94-I-14 r| e k

H o f fa r d C re ek

94-I-12/ 94-I-12/ 94-I-12/ 94-I-11/ 94-I-11/ 94-I-11/ 94- I-11/ Blo ck K Block J Block I Block L Blo ck K Block J Blo ck I

e e Proposed Sierra r C Meter Station

h b-25-K/94-I-11 K a y k e k g l o C r e o N k Cr e e Ky k lo FIGURE 2 SCALE: 1: 200,000 Mapped km Area 0 2 4 6 Fort FISH SYMBOL MAP FOR Nelson High (All Locations Approximate) J Level J WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS ALONG J Rainbow THE NGTL HORN RIVER MAINLINE PROJECT Lake February 2010 6391

!R Proposed Valve Existing Pipeline DATA SOURCES: BRITISH AL B E RTA Trenched/Trenchless Pipeline Crossing: TERA Environmental Consultants 2009; COLUMBIA !( Trenched Pipeline Crossing Proposed Camp Site Road Proposed Valve, Proposed Camp Site, Proposed Meter Station: Midwest Survey 2009; Pipeline Routing: Proposed Pipeline Route - November 04, 2009; Manning Proposed Meter Station Proposed Komie East Extension Pipeline - November 06, 2009; Proposed J Transmission Line Hydrostatic Test Pipeline - November 04, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey); Existing Pipeline: IHS Inc. 2009; Crossing dot used to illustrate approximate Proposed Pipeline Route Peace Stream/River Road: GeoBase® 2008; BC Ministry of Environment 2009; Midwest Survey 2009; Fort J River location of recommended watercourse BC Oil and Gas Commission 2009; BC Crown Registries and Geographic Base Branch 2008; St. John crossing (contingency pipeline method and Proposed Komie East Transmission Line: BC Ministry of Environment 2009. J Lake Hydrography: IHS Inc. 1996; access crossing methods not identified on map) Extension Pipeline Dawson Park/Protected Area: BC Parks 2006. High Creek J Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate Prairie Park/Protected Area J Proposed Hydrostatic Test Pipeline this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 6391_ESA_Aquatics_Figure2_FISH_Rev6.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

4.1.2 Contingency Pipeline Crossing Methods It is anticipated that the primary pipeline methods recommended for pipeline construction at all 19 watercourse crossings will be successful and no contingency methods are proposed.

4.1.3 Recommended Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods The construction of the pipeline will also require watercourse crossings for vehicles and equipment. Wherever possible, it is recommended that vehicles and equipment utilize existing bridges, culverts and roads.

Existing access crossings were identified at 4 of the 19 watercourse crossings (1-WC, 3-WC, 5-WC and 8-WC) and, if possible, it is recommended that existing crossings be used for vehicle and equipment. If existing access crossings cannot be used, it is recommended that these crossings use ice bridges, snowfills during frozen or clear span bridges during open water conditions for their vehicle and equipment crossings. With the successful implementation of the conditions and mitigative measures in DFO's OS for Ice Bridges and Snow Fills (DFO 2008d) or Clear-span Bridges (DFO 2008e), the recommended crossing methods will ensure compliance with the OS. As such, crossings constructed with these two methods will only require notification to DFO under these OS.

The recommended vehicle and equipment crossing method for 15-WC (Sahtaneh River) during frozen conditions is a clear span bridge to limit the amount of potential disturbance to the banks since the banks may be susceptible to erosion and/or difficult to stabilize. A notification for the placement of a clear span bridge at 15-WC should be submitted to DFO under the OS for Clear-span Bridges (DFO 2008e) and construction practices will need to adhere to all conditions and mitigative measures discussed in the OS.

At the remaining 14 watercourse crossings, the recommended vehicle and equipment crossing methods during frozen conditions (i.e., winter) are snowfills or ice bridges. These vehicle and equipment crossing methods will require notification to DFO under DFO’s OS for Ice Bridges and Snow Fills (DFO 2008d) and construction practices should adhere to all conditions and mitigative measures discussed in this OS.

Although construction is scheduled to occur during frozen conditions, in the event vehicle and equipment access is required during open water conditions, it is recommended that clear span bridges be used for vehicle and equipment crossings. These vehicle and equipment crossing methods will require notification to DFO under DFO’s OS for Clear-span Bridges (DFO 2008e) and construction practices should adhere to all conditions and mitigative measures discussed in this OS.

In the event vehicle and equipment access is required during open water conditions for nonfish-bearing watercourses, it is recommended that clear span bridges or logfills be used for vehicle and equipment crossings. If logfills are used at these sites, precautions will be needed to ensure that the potential for downstream sediment transport is minimized (e.g., construction should only occur during low flow conditions; all equipment and resources needed to complete the crossing should be onsite before instream construction begins to ensure the time needed to complete the crossing is minimized; appropriate sediment and erosion controls should be used on the banks; and appropriate bank reclamation should be undertaken immediately after the crossing is completed). Logfills can also be applied at these sites if they are dry at the time of construction.

4.2 Recommended Crossing Methods for Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages

4.2.1 Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods The recommended pipeline crossing methods for all three fish-bearing NCDs are trenched pipeline methods (Table 10). An isolated trenched method is recommended for all fish-bearing NCDs, if flowing at the time of construction, while an open cut method is recommended if the crossing site is dry or frozen to bottom at the time of construction.

Page 31

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

Trenched crossings at fish-bearing NCDs will require case-specific review by DFO if water is present when construction occurs and isolation methods are to be used. If construction occurs when the crossing sites are frozen to bottom or dry, open cut methods will only require notification to DFO under the OS for Dry Open-Cut Crossings (DFO 2008a). Construction practices should adhere to all conditions and mitigative measures outlined in the OS.

BC MOE does not require notification for the crossing of NCDs.

4.2.2 Contingency Pipeline Crossing Methods It is anticipated that the recommended construction methods for the pipeline crossings at the three fish-bearing NCDs described in this report will be successful and no contingency methods are proposed.

4.2.3 Recommended Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods The recommended vehicle and equipment crossing method during winter conditions for all three fish-bearing NCDs are snowfills or ice bridges (Table 10). This vehicle and equipment crossing method will require notification to DFO under the OS for Ice Bridges and Snow Fills (DFO 2008d) and construction practices should adhere to all conditions and mitigative measures discussed in the OS.

4.3 Recommended Riparian Area Management Riparian management and minimizing disturbance within the riparian areas of all watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline route is recommended in order to minimize the movement of sediment and avoid contamination of watercourses. Activities that could affect the water quality of the watercourses along the pipeline route should be appropriately mitigated. Riparian areas that are disturbed should be reclaimed and revegetated. In addition, banks will also require reconstruction and reclamation at watercourses that are constructed by trenched pipeline crossings methods. Mitigative measures outlined in the BC MOF Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (BC MOF 2002), BC MOF Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF 1995), and Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (BC MWLAP 2004b), where appropriate, should be implemented at all watercourses.

The RMA consists of two zones: the Riparian Reserve Zone (RRZ) which borders both banks of a watercourse; and the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) which borders both sides of the RRZ. In general, the removal of vegetation within the RRZ is not permitted and constraints (based on the objectives for the RMZ) on the removal of vegetation apply within the RMZ. However, under the BC MOFR Forest and Range Practices Act, restrictions and constraints in the RRZ and RMZ, respectively, are relaxed for stream crossings and roads constructed and maintained under the Pipeline Act.

During pipeline construction and when installing vehicle and equipment crossings, efforts should be made to restrict riparian clearing to a minimum. When removing vegetation from the RMZ of S2, S3, and S4 streams (i.e., 20 m for S2 and S3 streams and 30 m for S4 streams) efforts should be made within the RMZ to maintain the integrity of the RRZ (e.g., manage the risk of wind blown trees in the RRZ) and protect important wildlife values in the RMZ (e.g., provide opportunities for meeting wildlife tree objectives).

For nonfish-bearing S6 streams, there is no RRZ and the 20 m RMA is composed only of an RMZ. The objective of the RMZ for S6 streams is to maintain important wildlife habitat values, streambank and channel stability, and streambank shading. Mitigative measures for S6 streams outlined in the BC MOF Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF 1995) should be applied in the RMZ of S6 streams when removing vegetation.

Page 32

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

Site-specific riparian reclamation plans will be developed that focus on restoring natural vegetation that approximates preconstruction conditions and that, where possible, additional plantings be planted to offset the disturbance using a 2:1 replacement ratio (i.e., plant 2 m2 of additional plantings in near by areas for every 1 m2 that is disturbed).

It is also recommended that the mitigative measures for the protection to rare plants that are included in the vegetation studies completed for the Project (TERA 2009) are implemented during construction.

4.4 Recommended Crossing Methods for Non-Fish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages There were 59 NCDs identified along the proposed pipeline route that lacked defined bed and banks and did not contain fish or provide fish habitat (Table 11). Photo records and locations of the NCDs are included in Appendix 1C. Due to the wet and often flooded conditions during spring/summer 2009 aquatic assessments, distinct NCDs were difficult to identify and the number of NCDs encountered during construction may slightly differ from the results reported in this document.

With the successful implementation of appropriate mitigative measures, open cut pipeline crossing and logfill or swamp mats vehicle and equipment crossing methods can be applied at these sites (Table 11). With respect to crossing these sites, there are no anticipated regulatory requirements associated with notification or application to DFO (Fisheries Act) or BC MOE (Water Act).

Page 33

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

5.0 MITIGATION

5.1 Standard Mitigation The recommended crossing techniques and mitigative measures recommended in this report were developed in accordance with the construction standards outlined in: the Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings, 3rd Edition (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers [CAPP] et al. 2005); BC MOF’s Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (BC MOF 2002); and BC MWLAP’s Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (BC MWLAP 2004b). The guide Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings (CAPP et al. 2005) includes an endorsement by DFO which indicates it is a compilation of modern planning considerations, ‘best practices’ for pipeline and vehicle crossing construction techniques, and current environmental protection methods that are used to meet regulatory requirements across Canada and to minimize fisheries habitat effects associated with pipeline-related water crossing activities.

The DFO OSs mentioned in Section 4.0 also contain a variety of mitigative measures that should be followed whether or not all conditions in the OS are met. In addition, the following mitigative measures should help ensure that the aquatic capacity of each watercourse is not compromised during instream activities.

• Any disturbance of the right-of-way approach to any watercourse related to the Project and associated activities should be kept to a minimum and immediately stabilized and restored to approximate natural conditions, where feasible.

• Appropriate precautions will need to be implemented to prevent deleterious substances (e.g., gasoline, sediment, oil, wet concrete, etc.) from entering watercourses. The cleaning, fuelling and servicing of equipment should be conducted in an area where spills or wash water will not contaminate surface water or groundwater resources. An appropriate emergency spill kit also needs to be available at all times.

• Spoil and waste materials removed from the work site should be stored above the high watermark and stabilized, if warranted, to minimize the potential for runoff events to transport them into the waterbody.

• All equipment entering the Project site should be clean prior to arrival and cleaned prior to departure, to ensure equipment transferred between the Fort Nelson River sub-basin and Hay River sub-basin does not transfer mud, debris, or aquatic pests (e.g., Myxobolus cerebralis - the parasite that causes whirling disease in fish).

• Construction should be halted when adverse construction conditions, caused by inclement weather, occur.

• Construction materials and debris should be prevented from entering the watercourses.

• Appropriate erosion and sediment control methods should be installed and maintained to prevent sediments from disturbed areas from being transported into watercourses. This should include the management of slopes near each watercourse.

• Correspondence from regulatory agencies (e.g., DFO and BC MOE) may result in a number of conditions on the proposed works that will need to be followed during construction and operations. For example, if DFO provides an LOA, they will likely provide conditions that must be implemented for the activities to occur and in order to avoid a HADD. These conditions will also need to be incorporated into the mitigation program.

• Review of all mitigation and regulatory requirements should occur during a start-up meeting. The discussion should be used to ensure that all mitigation requirements are understood.

Page 34

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

5.2 Mitigation for an Isolated Pipeline Crossing The following mitigative measures should be implemented when isolated trenched crossings are conducted.

• Clean coarse material (gravel or rock) or native material removed from the trench should be placed in the trenched area as the final 0.5 m of backfill. Where there is not sufficient native material or where salvage of the native granular material is not practical to complete backfilling, non-native granular material can be used to cap the trench. All imported granular non-native material used for capping should be clean, washed granular material. This material must be obtained from offsite and not obtained from below the average high water level of any watercourse.

• The bed and banks of each watercourse should be returned as close as possible to their original preconstruction contours. Watercourses should not be realigned or straightened in any way nor have their hydraulic characteristics changed.

• Crossings should be located across straight sections perpendicular to the bank. Crossings at meanders or bends should not occur.

• All reasonable efforts should be made to minimize the duration of instream work. Prior to isolating the area, construction crews need to have all materials prepared and equipment onsite to minimize the duration of the crossing activities. Consideration should be given to working around the clock to complete the crossing, where practical.

• Isolation bypass water maintaining downstream flow should not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel. Methods and options for preventing erosion include: flow dissipaters; protection of the substrate with geotextile; releasing water onto vegetation; and placing erosion control mats immediately adjacent to the watercourse.

• Earth berms should not be used as the isolation structure.

• When constructing an isolated crossing, downstream flow must be provided at all times and the quantity and quality of flow downstream is to be maintained throughout the isolation procedure. If a pump-around method is used to maintain downstream flow, back-up pumping capacity must be onsite and ready to take over pumping immediately if operating pumps fail. Pumps are to be continually monitored to ensure downstream flow is maintained at all times until the dam materials are removed and normal flows restored to the channel.

• Pump intakes should not disturb the streambed. Pumps used at fish-bearing waterbodies should be screened with a maximum mesh size of 2.54 mm and a maximum screen approach velocity of 0.038 m/s. The maximum screen velocity can be achieved by placing pump intake in a metal cage with a mesh size of less than 2.54 mm.

• In fish-bearing watercourses and NCDs a fish salvage within the isolated area should be conducted prior to or during dewatering activities.

• A water quality monitoring plan including all watercourses should be developed with input from a QEP to monitor total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations during the installation and removal of isolation dams. TSS concentration levels should follow the guidelines provided in CCME (2007) and BC MOE (2006) throughout the installation and removal of isolation dams. In some cases, such as where fisheries concerns are low and flow volumes are minimal at the time of construction; the water quality monitoring plan may only require visual monitoring.

• Site-specific bed and bank reclamation plans need to be developed for sites 3-WC, 6-WC, 11-WC and 15-WC and where feasible these plans should incorporate elements to enhance nearby instream fish habitat.

Page 35

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

approximates preconstruction conditions and, where possible, additional plantings will be planted to offset the disturbance using a 2:1 replacement ratio (i.e., plant 2 m2 of additional plantings in near by areas for every 1 m2 that is disturbed).

• For watercourse crossings where no site-specific riparian reclamation plans have been developed and where banks are disturbed by construction activities, salvaged strippings should be replaced to revegetate banks. Disturbed banks and riparian areas should be seeded with a native grass mixture. The Environmental Inspector (EI) and/or QEP should determine onsite whether other restoration methods should also be applied to stabilize banks (e.g., soil wraps, brush layers, willow plantings and matting) in a manner that approximates natural conditions, where appropriate.

5.3 Mitigation for Open Cut Pipeline Crossings if Water Present A trenched open cut pipeline crossing could be used during flowing conditions at some watercourses (i.e., small nonfish-bearing watercourses). The mitigative measures listed below should be implemented if open cut crossings are used when water is present.

• The watercourse bed and banks are to be returned as close as possible to their original preconstruction contours. Watercourses should not be realigned or straightened in any way nor have their hydraulic characteristics changed.

• Crossings will need to be located across straight reaches of the watercourse channel and be constructed perpendicular to the bank. Crossings at meanders or bends should not occur.

• All equipment and resources needed to complete the crossing should be onsite before instream construction begins and ensure sufficient back-up equipment is available.

• Store temporary excavation material 10 m beyond the high watermark of the watercourse on storage materials (e.g., tarps, plywood, etc.) and cover (e.g., with polyliner, tarp, etc.) to ensure that materials do not enter watercourse and damage riparian vegetation.

• Clean coarse material (gravel or rock) or native material removed from the trench should be replaced in the trenched area as the final 0.5 m of backfill. Where there is not sufficient native material or where salvage of the native granular material is not practical to complete backfilling, non-native granular material can be used to cap the trench. All imported granular non-native materials used for capping shall be clean, washed granular material. This material must be obtained from offsite, and not obtained from below the average high water level of any watercourse.

• String, weld, coat and weight the pipe prior to commencement of instream construction.

• All reasonable efforts should be made to minimize the duration of instream work (e.g., attempt to complete instream activities within 24 hours, use larger or more equipment, etc.).

• Do not store any excavation material in the watercourse during the open cut.

• Appropriate erosion and sediment control methods should be installed prior to construction and maintained to prevent sediments from disturbed areas from being transported into watercourses.

• If necessary, plan and install instream sediment control measures. Ensure these measures are maintained throughout the duration of instream activities.

• To avoid the possibility that sediments disturbed during construction activities impact downstream fish habitat, construction should only occur during low flow periods (e.g., construct during the fall/winter, do not construct after precipitation events or during snowmelt). Under most conditions water quality monitoring will only require visual monitoring by the EI, but if visual monitoring suggests flow is being transported more than 300 m downstream, a QEP should be consulted to determine whether water quality monitoring is needed.

Page 36

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

• Install temporary soft plugs and dewater trench onto stable vegetated land and not directly into watercourse, if trench sloughing is occurring and it is necessary to control water flow.

• Follow riparian reclamation plans for all crossings where site-specific riparian reclamation plans have been developed. Site-specific riparian reclamation plans will focus on restoring natural vegetation that approximates preconstruction conditions and, where possible, additional plantings will be planted to offset the disturbance using a 2:1 replacement ratio (i.e., plant 2 m2 of additional plantings in near by areas for every 1 m2 that is disturbed).

• For watercourse crossings where no site-specific riparian reclamation plans have been developed and where banks are disturbed by construction activities, salvaged strippings should be replaced to revegetate banks. Disturbed banks and riparian areas should be seeded with a native grass mixture. The EI and/or QEP should determine onsite whether other restoration methods should also be applied to stabilize banks (e.g., soil wraps, brush layers, willow plantings and matting) in a manner that approximates natural conditions, where appropriate.

5.4 Mitigation for Dry or Frozen to Bottom Open Cut Pipeline Crossings The following mitigative measures should be implemented if open cut crossings are used and the crossing is dry or frozen to the bottom.

• The watercourse bed and banks need to be returned as close as possible to their original preconstruction contours. Watercourses should not be realigned or straightened in any way nor have their hydraulic characteristics changed.

• Crossings will need to be located across straight reaches of the watercourse channel and be constructed perpendicular to the bank. Crossings at meanders or bends should not occur.

• Do not store any excavation material in the watercourse during the open cut.

• Clean coarse material (gravel or rock) or native material removed from the trench should be placed in the trenched area as the final 0.5 m of backfill. Where there is not sufficient native material or where salvage of the native granular material is not practical to complete backfilling, non-native granular material can be used to cap the trench. All imported granular non-native materials used for capping shall be clean, washed granular material. This material must be obtained from offsite, and not obtained from below the average high water level of any watercourse.

• For watercourse crossings where no site-specific riparian reclamation plans have been developed and where banks are disturbed by construction activities, salvaged strippings should be replaced to revegetate banks. Disturbed banks and riparian areas should be seeded with a native grass mixture. The EI and/or QEP should determine onsite whether other restoration methods should also be applied to stabilize banks (e.g., soil wraps, brush layers, willow plantings and matting) in a manner that approximates natural conditions, where appropriate.

Page 37

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

5.5 Mitigation for Trenchless Pipeline Crossings If any trenchless pipeline crossings are required, the following mitigation measures should be implemented.

• A water quality monitoring plan will need to be developed that includes monitoring for TSS and/or turbidity. The water quality monitoring plan should be developed with input from a QEP. Monitoring water quality helps to identify accidental sediment releases from a trenchless crossing into aquatic environments. It also helps document the extent of the potential impact from sediments introduced into the water column and whether provincial and national threshold guidelines for suspended sediments in the water column are exceeded (e.g., BC MOE 2006, CCME 2007). These thresholds are commonly used to protect aquatic life from adverse effects caused by elevated TSS levels.

• An emergency response plan should be developed in the event of sediment releases or spills of deleterious substances during the trenchless crossings.

• If sediment-laden water or other deleterious substances are entering a watercourse, work will need to cease immediately and sediment-laden water and other deleterious substances will need to be contained (if feasible, without causing further environmental damage) and prevented from downstream transport.

• If sediment-laden water or other deleterious substances are entering a watercourse, the emergency contacts outlined in the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for this Project including the appropriate regulatory agencies should be notified (e.g., BC MOE, Environment Canada and DFO).

• For a bore or horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossing, the crossing path needs to be designed to an appropriate depth to minimize the potential for the pipeline to be damaged or exposed as a result of channel migration and natural scouring of the streambed.

• Bellholes and HDD entry and exit sites should be excavated back from the ordinary high watermark (i.e., 30 m from S2 streams, 20 m from S3 stream, and 10 m from S4 and S6 streams) and far enough from the watercourse to provide for containment of sediments and other deleterious substances above the high watermark. Vegetation removal for the bellholes and HDD entry and exit sites should only occur within the approved construction right-of-way and be kept to a minimum.

• Water from dewatering bellholes and drill entry and exit sites will have a high sediment load and should not be discharged or allowed to flow into any waterbody. The sediment load will need to be removed (e.g., filtered or discharged into a vegetated area) before discharge water is allowed to enter any watercourse.

• Any areas disturbed by construction activities need to be properly stabilized and revegetated to prevent erosion and post-construction sediment releases. Effective sediment and erosion control measures are required until adequate revegetation occurs. Additional mitigative measures are provided in Section 5.7.

5.6 Mitigation for Vehicle and Equipment Crossings The following mitigative measures should be implemented for any temporary vehicle and equipment crossings that are installed.

• An ice/snowfill or ice bridge should be used if a temporary crossing is needed in ice covered, dry, or frozen to bottom conditions. A temporary clear span bridge can also be used for temporary access.

• All debris associated with the installation of the temporary access should be removed immediately after completion of the pipeline crossing.

• Banks and areas disturbed for approaches should be stabilized and restored to preconstruction conditions. No excavation of the streambed is allowed to occur.

Page 38

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

• Only clean ice/snow should be used for the construction of an ice/snowfill or ice bridge. Approaches to the bridge should be constructed with compacted snow and ice of sufficient thickness to protect the stream channel and banks. Sand or gravel is not to be used for ice bridge approaches.

• Ice bridges or snowfills should not interfere with or impede winter flows.

• Ice bridges and snowfills should be dismantled prior to spring freshet. At a minimum, ice bridges and snowfills should be mechanically breached to the natural ice level prior to spring break-up.

• If water extraction is necessary for the construction of a temporary crossing, no more than 10% of the instantaneous stream flow should be withdrawn at any given time. Pump intakes should not disturb the streambed. Pumps should be screened with a maximum mesh size of 2.54 mm and should have a maximum screen approach velocity of less than 0.038 m/s where fish habitat is present.

• Clear span bridges should be used if new temporary crossings are needed during open water conditions. These temporary structures should be designed to meet and exceed 1:50 year flood levels and be installed perpendicular to the watercourse.

• Installation and removal of any temporary vehicle crossings are to be conducted in a manner that protect the banks from erosion and maintain the flows in the waterway. These crossings will be returned to their preconstruction condition.

• Construction of temporary vehicle access across waterbodies, shorelines, riverbanks and wetlands are to follow best practices for BC as well as any applicable DFO OS.

• For watercourse crossings where no site-specific riparian reclamation plans have been developed and where banks are disturbed by construction activities, salvaged strippings should be replaced to revegetate banks. Disturbed banks and riparian areas should be seeded with a native grass mixture. The EI and/or QEP should determine onsite whether other restoration methods should also be applied to stabilize banks (e.g., soil wraps, brush layers, willow plantings and matting) in a manner that approximates natural conditions, where appropriate.

5.7 Mitigation for Riparian Area Management The following mitigative measures should be followed in riparian areas when removing and maintaining vegetation.

• Limited physical disturbance of the stream bank, infilling (e.g., filling scour pools, rock armouring placement) or excavation of the channel within or upstream or downstream of the right-of-way should occur during construction activities.

• Stream crossings should be designed to minimize clearing of vegetation in the RMZ for S2, S3, S4 and S6 streams and prevent disruption to normal drainage patterns, and to maintain fish habitat and stream bank integrity.

• Trees should not be felled into a watercourse. When altering a tree that is located on the bank of a waterbody, ensure that the root structure and stability are maintained, to help bind the soil and encourage rapid colonization of low-growing plant species. In addition, no debris should remain within the high watermark or be placed into a stream.

• Where practical, alter riparian vegetation in the right-of-way by hand. Avoid grubbing and use vegetative maintenance and removal techniques such as pruning, mowing, girdling, topping and select tree removals that allow the root system to remain. If machinery must be used, operate

Page 39

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

machinery on land (above the high watermark) and in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the banks of the watercourse. In addition, minimize disturbance to all low-growing shrubs or grass species.

• Follow riparian reclamation plans for all crossings where site-specific riparian reclamation plans have been developed. For crossings where there are no site-specific riparian reclamation plans, vegetate any disturbed areas by planting and seeding with native trees, shrubs or grasses and cover such areas with mulch to prevent erosion and help seeds germinate. If required to vegetate the following spring (i.e., there is insufficient time remaining in the current growing season), exposed areas should be covered and stabilized with erosion control blankets to keep the soil in place and prevent erosion.

• Conduct a post-construction inspection of the site to assess slope and bank integrity and potential for stream bank erosion. If any problems are observed, a QEP should assess the situation immediately.

5.8 Effectiveness of Recommended Mitigation In addition to being largely developed from the guide Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings, 3rd Edition (CAPP et al. 2005), the recommended mitigative/reclamation measures have been used previously on other pipeline construction projects with success. The following are three examples.

• Bank restoration and the addition of instream cover at the Battle River were deemed successful by DFO (Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. 2003). Restoration included recontouring and bank stabilization with soil wraps and willow staking. Post-construction audits included the physical stability of the banks and their ability to withstand high water events, assess the survival of willow and grass plantings, record the extent of instream vegetation, and quantify fish usage within the area including quantity, species and life history stages. Restoration work was completed for Husky Energy in 2002 and the audit was completed in 2003.

• Successful restoration was completed on the Nordegg River for Suncor Energy (TERA Environmental Consultants [Alta.] Ltd. 1999). Restoration included recontouring and reclamation of the river bed, approach slopes and workspace. Upland restoration included replacing subsoil and topsoil, and planting of willow stakes. The audit was completed one year after construction and concluded that the restoration plan was successful.

• Two years of post-construction monitoring of the bank restoration at watercourse crossings of a Shell Canada Limited pipeline in the upper Elbow River and Jumpingpound Creek watersheds were submitted to DFO for review (TERA 2008). Post-construction assessments were conducted to document the effectiveness of the mitigation/compensation measures and to identify any problem areas that required remedial action. Bank restoration included the survival of riparian vegetation plantings (e.g., willow plantings) and seeded areas for all watercourse crossings.

5.9 Mitigation for Navigable Watercourses Since this is an NEB-regulated project the 'minor works' policies are not applicable. Transport Canada needs to make a determination of navigability on the watercourses being crossed.

A request for a determination of navigability was submitted to Transport Canada for all watercourses on the proposed route in July 2009.

The mitigation for navigation outlined in the EPP for the Project will need to be followed, as well as any additional mitigation and conditions imposed by Transport Canada.

Page 40

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

6.0 SUMMARY / CLOSING The written specifications and recommendations in this report have been developed to minimize the potential for the proposed activities to negatively impact the productive capacity of the aquatic environment at the 19 watercourses and 3 fish-bearing NCDs discussed in this report. The written specifications and recommendations in this report for the 19 watercourses meet the requirements of the BC Water Act.

Lindsay Watson, B.Sc., P.Biol., R.P. Bio. Aquatic Ecologist

Reviewed by:

Kerry Brewin, M.Sc., P.Biol. Senior Fish Biologist

Page 41

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 Personal Communications Anderson, B. Fish Biologist, Peace Region, Fish and Wildlife Section of BC Ministry of Environment, Fort St. John, BC.

7.2 Literature Cited Alberta Transportation. 2001. Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines & Procedures for Watercourse Crossings in Alberta. Revised August 2009.

Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. 2003. Post-construction Monitoring Following Pipeline Armouring on the Battle River, Alberta. Prepared for Husky Energy Inc.

Bain, M. and N. Stevenson. 1999. Common Methods: Aquatic Habitat Assessment. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland, United States.

Barton, B.A. and B.R. Taylor. 1996. Oxygen requirements of fishes in northern Alberta rivers with a general review of the adverse effects of low dissolved oxygen. Water Quality Research Journal Canada 31(2): 361-409.

Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielson and R.A. Palmason. 1981. A system of naming habitat types in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low streamflow. Pp 62-73 in: Armantrout, N.B. (ed.). Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Information. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2009. British Columbia Species and Ecosystems Explorer. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, British Columbia. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cdc/.. Accessed: September 2009.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2001. British Columbia Fisheries Information Services Branch for the Resources Information Standards Committee Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Standards and Procedures. Website: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/aquatic/recon/index.htm.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2006. Water Quality: British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines 2006 Edition. Environmental Protection Division, Science and Information Branch. Original Produced 1998.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2008a. BC Watershed Groups - Key Map. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/watershed_atlas_maps/maps/index.html Accessed: September 2009.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2008b. A Users' Guide to Working In and Around Water: understanding the Regulation under British Columbia's Water Act. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Water Stewardship Division. Originally issued 2005. Updated 2008. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/cabinet/working_around_water.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2009a. Habitat Wizard. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habwiz/. Accessed: September 2009.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2009b. Fisheries Inventory Data Queries Tool (FIDQ). Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/fidq/index.html. Accessed: September 2009.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2006. Biogeoclimatic Zones of British Columbia. Website: http://www.learnforestry.com/lessons/nfw/2006/bgczones.pdf. Accessed: September 2009.

Page 42

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1995. Riparian Management Area Guidebook. Forest Practices Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/riparian/Rip-toc.htm.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1996. The Ecology of the Boreal White and Black Spruce Zone. Victoria, BC.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1998. Fish Stream Identification Guidebook 2nd Edition, Version 2.1. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia, Victoria, BC.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2002. Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook. Forest Practices Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Victoria, Website: www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/FPCGUIDE/FishStreamCrossing/FSCGdBk.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection. 2004a. Terms and Conditions for changes in and about a stream specified by MWLAP Habitat Officers, Peace Region. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/regions/nor/wateract/terms_conditions_per.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004b. Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works. 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Website: www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/iswstdsbpsmarch2004.pdf.

Calliou Group. 2009. Final Report Dene Tha’ First Nation Aboriginal Knowledge and Land Use Study for Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the NGTL Horn River Mainline Pipeline Project. Prepared on behalf of Dene Tha’ First Nation, November 4, 2009. Unpublished.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association. 2005. Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings, Third Edition. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants, Calgary AB for CAPP, CEPA and CGA. http://www.capp.ca/library/publications/industryOperations/pages/pubInfo.aspx?DocId=96717.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2007. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Summary Table. Update 7.1 December 2007. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2009a. COSEWIC Species Database. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm. Accessed: September 2009.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2009b. COSEWIC Prioritized Candidate List. Website: httphttp://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm#3. Accessed: September 2009.

Down, T. 1993. Peace Fisheries - Field Report; Snake River at Confluence with Fort Nelson River. Aquatic Information Branch. Victoria, BC. 2 pp.

Environment Canada. 2009a. Water Survey of Canada: HYDAT Archived Hydrometric Data for Hay River at the Town of Meander River, Alberta. Environment Canada. Accessed September 2009. Website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/hydat/H2O/index_e.cfm.

Environment Canada. 2009b. Water Survey of Canada: HYDAT Archived Hydrometric Data for Fort Nelson River at the Town of Fort Nelson, British Columbia. Environment Canada. Accessed April 2009. Website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/hydat/H2O/index_e.cfm.

Environmental Dynamics Inc. 2008. Fisheries Survey for the Cabin-Sierra Pipeline Project. Prepared for EnCana Corporation, Calgary, Alberta.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008a. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Operational Statement for Dry Open-Cut Stream Crossings (Version 1.0). Website: http://www-heb.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/decisionsupport/os/os-dry_cut_e.htm.

Page 43

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Aquatic Assessment Horn River Mainline Project February 2010 / 6391

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008b. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Operational Statement for Directional Drilling (Version 3.0). Website: http://www-heb.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/decisionsupport/os/os-drilling_e.htm.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008c. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Operational Statement for Punch & Bore Crossings (Version 3.0). Website: http://www-heb.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/decisionsupport/os/os-punch_bore_e.htm.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008d. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Operational Statement for Ice Bridges and Snow Fills(Version 3.0). Website: http://www-heb.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/decisionsupport/os/os-ice_bridge_e.htm.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008e. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Operational Statement for Clear Span Bridges (Version 3.0). Website: http://www-heb.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/decisionsupport/os/os-clear_span_e.htm.

Freshwater Fisheries Society of British Columbia. 2009. Fish/Habitat Wizard. Website: http://www.fishwizard.com/default.htm. Accessed: September 2009.

McPhail, J.D., 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. The University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta. 620pp.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer - An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm.

Richardson, E.S., J.D. Reist and C.K. Minns. 2001. Life history characteristics of freshwater fishes occurring in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, with major emphasis on lake habitat requirements. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2569: vii+146p.

TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. 1999. Pre and Post-construction Monitoring at the Nordegg River Crossing for the Suncor Energy Inc. Brown Creek-Blackstone Pipeline Project. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008. Shell Canada Limited Moose Mountain Interconnect Pipeline Post-Construction Watercourse Crossing Review 2006 – 2008. Prepared for: Shell Canada Limited.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2009. Rare Plant Report Supplemental Study Completed for the Environmental And Socio-Economic Assessment For The Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. Horn River Mainline Project. Prepared for Nova Gas Transmission Ltd.

Page 44