Prepared For: 2008 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

APPENDIX 3

2008 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT

Prepared for: 2008 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

FOR THE NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.

A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited Calgary, Alberta

Prepared by:

TERA Environmental Consultants Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Ph: 403-265-2885

April 2009 5745

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Project Description...... 1 1.2 Study Area ...... 1 1.3 Fish Community ...... 3 1.4 Regulatory Framework...... 7 1.4.1 Federal Framework...... 7 1.4.2 Provincial Framework in B.C...... 8 1.4.3 Provincial Framework in Alberta ...... 9 1.5 Scope of Work...... 9 2.0 METHODS ...... 11 2.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment ...... 11 2.2 Fish Inventories...... 11 2.3 Desktop Review ...... 12 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 13 3.1 Watercourse Crossings in B.C...... 13 3.2 Watercourse Crossings in Alberta ...... 24 3.3 Aquatic Habitat Assessment ...... 24 3.3.1 Fish Habitat Potential...... 25 3.4 Fish Inventories...... 28 3.4.1 Instream Timing Windows for Watercourse Crossings in B.C...... 29 3.5 Desktop Review Results ...... 30 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 32 4.1 Recommended Crossing Methods for Drainages...... 32 4.2 Recommended Crossing Methods for Watercourses...... 32 4.2.1 Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods in B.C...... 32 4.2.2 Contingency Pipeline Crossing Methods in B.C...... 33 4.2.3 Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods in Alberta ...... 33 4.2.4 Contingency Pipeline Crossing Methods in Alberta...... 34 4.2.5 Vehicle/Equipment Crossing Methods in B.C. and Alberta ...... 34 4.3 Recommended Riparian Area Management in B.C...... 34 5.0 MITIGATION ...... 40 5.1 Effectiveness of Mitigation ...... 40 5.2 Standard Mitigation ...... 40 5.3 Mitigation for a Trenchless Pipeline Crossing...... 41 5.4 Mitigation for an Isolated Pipeline Crossing...... 42 5.5 Mitigation for Open Cut Pipeline Crossings ...... 43 5.6 Mitigation for Riparian Area Management ...... 43 5.7 Mitigation for Vehicle/Equipment Crossings ...... 44 5.8 Regulatory Requirements and Recommended Mitigation for Navigation...... 44 6.0 SUMMARY / CLOSING...... 46 7.0 REFERENCES...... 47 7.1 Personal Communication...... 47 7.2 Literature Cited...... 47

Page i

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Site Records for Watercourses ...... 52 Appendix B Site Records for Drainages...... 64

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location of Watercourse Crossings along the Pipeline...... 2 Figure 2 Locations of Watercourse Crossings and Drainages along the Pipeline...... 14 Figure 3 DFO Fish Symbol Map of Watercourse Crossings along the Pipeline ...... 39

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Fish Species that May Occur in the Pouce Coupe River and Kiskatinaw River Sub-Basins...... 4 Table 2 Peace Region Fish Timing Windows for Selected Species...... 9 Table 3 Riparian Management Areas for Stream Classes of the Watercourses in B.C. that are Crossed by the Project ...... 13 Table 4 Summary of Water Quality Parameters and Mean Channel Characteristics for Watercourses Crossed ...... 26 Table 5 Summary of Fish Habitat Potential Ratings for Fish-Bearing Watercourses...... 27 Table 6 Summary of Fish Sampling Results for Watercourses Electroshocked ...... 28 Table 7 Summary of Watercourse Crossings Along the Groundbirch Pipeline Project...... 36 Table 8 Summary of Drainages Along the Groundbirch Pipeline Project...... 37

Page ii

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA) was commissioned by NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada), to conduct an aquatic assessment along the Groundbirch Pipeline Project (the Project) between the Groundbirch area in British Columbia (B.C.) and the Gordondale area in Alberta.

NGTL is proposing to construct the Project to transport natural gas from the Groundbirch Receipt Meter Station (Legal Site Description [LSD] 2-3-79-19 W6M) located 37.2 km northwest of Dawson Creek, B.C. to tie-in with the Alberta System (LSD 2-12-79-12 W6M) (Figure 1).

The Project will consist of approximately 77 km of new 914 mm (NPS 36) outside diameter (O.D.) natural gas pipeline, block valves and side valves, provisions for future trap facilities to accommodate in-line inspection, cathodic protection for the facilities, associated miscellaneous works.

Facilities consist of the Groundbirch, Tremblay and Tremblay No. 2 receipt meter stations which will include custody transfer metering, communication and control systems and associated piping and valves.

The construction right-of-way will be 20 m wide with an additional 19 m of temporary workspace in agricultural lands. In forested crown lands the space requirements for construction will be determined in spring 2009 and the width of the disposition will be determined through discussions with Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Pending regulatory approval, construction is scheduled to commence July 15, 2010.

The Project will require approval by the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 52 of the NEB Act. As such, an Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) has been prepared. As part of the application, an aquatic assessment of the pipeline route was conducted by TERA in October 2008. At the time of the surveys, routing of the pipeline was considered preliminary and still in the planning stages pending landowner consultation. Since the aquatic assessment in October 2008, modifications to the pipeline routing have occurred as a result of landowner consultation. It is anticipated that minor shifts in the pipeline routing will continue until the consultation process is complete. Additional aquatic surveys will be conducted in 2009 to address new pipeline routing and any second season sampling requirements in B.C.

The following report describes the methods and results of the 2008 aquatic assessment on the watercrossings, as well as mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts to fish and fish habitat.

1.2 Study Area The Project lies within the Peace River Regional District of B.C. and Saddle Hills County of Alberta. The route traverses mostly privately-owned land within the Agricultural Land Reserve in B.C. and forested Crown land within the Green Area in Alberta.

The Project is located mostly in the Peace River Lowland Subregion with a small portion in the Western Alberta Upland Subregion of the Great Plains Physiographic Region. The topography of the Great Plains Region has elevated areas of land that have flat tops with steep cliff sides and ridges that are formed by gently tilted sedimentary rock strata (Valentine et al. 1978). These topographical features are developed on flat-lying or gently dipping sandstones and shales. The sandstones are relatively resistant to erosion and underlie the uplands (Valentine et al. 1978). Forests along the route are dominated by trembling aspen of variable successional stages (Meidinger and Pojar 1991).

The Project traverses the Kiskatinaw River and Pouce Coupe River sub-basins (Figure 1) (B.C. Ministry of Environment [MOE] 2008a). The Kiskatinaw River sub-basin is located in B.C. and encompasses an area of approximately 3,600 km2. The Pouce Coupe River sub-basin straddles the B.C.-Alberta border and has a drainage area of approximately 2,900 km² (Environment Canada 2008). Both the Kiskatinaw and Pouce Coupe rivers drain into the Peace River.

Page 1

R April 2009

T FIGURE 1

I A

L REGIONAL LOCATION

B NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED

E GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE

L 5745

U [ Tie-in Location

M Proposed Meter Station

B ! Watercourse Crossing

I ! Potential Watercourse A Crossing Proposed Pipeline Proposed Pipeline Section Not Assessed by Fish Crew

SCALE: 1: 225,000 km 0 3 6 (All Locations Approximate) Alberta System Tie-in Groundbirch 2-12-79-12 W6M ! Receipt Meter Station WC6 ! [ WC8 ! 2-3-79-19 W6M WC2 ! WC9 ! !! ! ! WC1 ! WC4 ! ! WC11 !! !! WC10 ! WC7 Tremblay / Tremblay No. 2 WC3 1:250,000 NTS Map: © 2009. WC5 Receipt Meter Stations Produced under license from Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 8-27-78-17 W6M with permission of Natural Resources Canada; Watercourse Crossing: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Potential Watercourse Crossing: TERA Environmental Consultants 2009; Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey).

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.

5745_ESA_Fig1_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd

High Level ALBERTA

Fort St. John Project Area

Grande Dawson Prairie Creek

Edmonton

Jasper Red Deer

Banff BRITISH COLUMBIA Calgary

Kimberley

USA NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

The Project crosses the Kiskatinaw River and several tributaries to the Kiskatinaw River including Fox Creek and other unnamed watercourses (Figure 1). The Kiskatinaw River originates from several small tributaries approximately 40 km southwest of the town of Tumbler Ridge, B.C. It flows north for 300 km before its confluence with the Peace River in B.C. near the B.C.-Alberta border approximately 15 km north of the city of Dawson Creek. The Kiskatinaw River at its headwaters is at an elevation of approximately 1,150 m above sea level (asl) and flows to an elevation of approximately 390 m asl at its confluence with the Peace River.

The pipeline also crosses the Pouce Coupe River and several other watercourses in the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin (Figure 1). Other named watercourses crossed in this sub-basin include Sergeant and McQueen creeks. The Pouce Coupe River originates in Alberta and then flows into B.C. near the city of Dawson Creek. The river then flows back into Alberta to its confluence with the Peace River in Alberta. The Pouce Coupe River flows for approximately 50 km from an elevation of approximately 670 m asl to an elevation of approximately 390 m asl at the Peace River.

The Water Survey of Canada maintained two hydrometric stations near the pipeline route that reported discharge data. One of the two stations was located on the Kiskatinaw River near the town of Farmington, B.C. (Station No. 07FD001) that recorded data from 1944 to 2006. The other station was located on the Pouce Coupe River below Henderson Creek in B.C. (Station No. 07FD007) that recorded data from 1971 to 2006 (Environment Canada 2008). The hydrographs from these stations show similar flow patterns for the Kiskatinaw and Pouce Coupe rivers and indicate that they are both influenced by seasonal events such as snowmelt and rain. Flows are minimal during the winter and increase during the spring freshet to peak in April/May. During an average spring freshet the Kiskatinaw and Pouce Coupe rivers peak at approximately 35, and 22 times, respectively, their normal winter flow levels. Flows gradually decrease throughout the summer levelling off in November when frozen conditions develop. The mean monthly discharge for the Kiskatinaw River was highest in late May (34.6 m³/s) and lowest in last half of February (0.8 m³/s). The mean monthly discharge for the Pouce Coupe River was highest in the first half of April (22.3 m³/s) and lowest in the last half of January (0.3 m³/s) (Environment Canada 2008). During the proposed construction period (mid summer/early fall), the Kiskatinaw River and Pouce Coupe River have mean monthly discharge levels of 6.6 m³/s and 4.1 m³/s in September and 5.1 m³/s and 2.0 m³/s in October, respectively.

It is also important to note that the Kiskatinaw River is the primary drinking water source for the city of Dawson Creek and towns of Rolla and Pouce Coupe in B.C. The Kiskatinaw River Watershed Management Plan (Dobson Engineering Ltd. 2003) was implemented by the city of Dawson Creek and focuses on minimizing the impact of existing and future resource development on water quality in the Kiskatinaw River sub-basin. The Project crosses the Kiskatinaw River approximately 4 km downstream of the main domestic drinking water supply intake for these municipalities in B.C.

1.3 Fish Community The fish communities in the Pouce Coupe River and Kiskatinaw River sub-basins are mixed assemblages containing both coldwater (e.g., salmonids) and coolwater (e.g., percids and esocids) species (Table 1). No fish species at risk listed by Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) are known to occur within the Kiskatinaw River and Pouce Coupe River sub-basins (COSEWIC 2008a). Although westslope cutthroat trout are listed as 'threatened' in Alberta and of 'special concern' in B.C. (COSEWIC 2008a), if any fish from the hatchery stockings that occurred in the Kiskatinaw River and Pouce Coupe River sub-basins remain, they would be introduced populations and the COSEWIC at risk designations only apply to native populations in their historic range. In addition, Arctic grayling populations in B.C. and Alberta are high priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2008b).

Page 3

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

TABLE 1

FISH SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE POUCE COUPE RIVER AND KISKATINAW RIVER SUB-BASINS

B.C. Alberta B.C. Alberta COSEWIC Species Species Spawning Provincial Provincial Listed Common Name1 Scientific Name Code Code Season2 Status3 Status4 Species5 SPORTFISH6 Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus GR ARGR spring yellow sensitive not listed rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss RT RNTR spring yellow secure not listed bull trout Salvelinus confluentus BT BLTR fall blue sensitive not listed brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis EB BKTR fall exotic exotic/alien not listed mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni MW MNWH fall yellow secure not listed

lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis LW LKWH fall yellow secure not listed burbot Lota lota BB BURB winter yellow secure not listed northern pike Esox lucius NP NRPK spring yellow secure not listed walleye Sander vitreus WP WALL spring yellow secure not listed yellow perch Perca flavescens YP YLPR spring yellow secure not listed NON-SPORTFISH longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus LSU LNSC spring yellow secure not listed largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus CSU LRSC summer yellow sensitive not listed white sucker Catostomus commersoni WSU WHSC spring yellow secure not listed lake chub Couesius plumbeus LKC LKCH spring yellow secure not listed flathead chub Platygobio gracilis FHC FLCH spring - yellow secure not listed summer peamouth chub7 Mylocheilus caurinus PCC PMCH spring yellow not ranked in not listed Alberta longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae LNC LNDC spring yellow secure not listed northern redbelly dace7 Phoxinus eos RDC NRDC spring unknown sensitive not listed finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus FDC FNDC spring unknown undetermined8 not listed pearl dace9 Margariscus margarita PDC PRDC spring blue undetermined8 not listed

redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus RSC RDSH spring yellow secure not listed spottail shiner9 Notropis hudsonius STC SPSH spring - yellow secure not listed summer

northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis NSC NRPM spring yellow sensitive not listed trout perch Percopsis omiscomaycus TP TRPR spring - yellow secure not listed summer slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus CRI SLSC spring yellow secure not listed 11 spoonhead sculpin Cottus ricei CCG SPSC spring yellow may be at risk - not at risk data deficient10 brook stickleback Culaea inconstans BSB BRST spring yellow secure not listed Sources: 1 Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. 2008; B.C. MOE 2008b, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Fish Management Information System (FMIS) 2008, McPhail 2007 2 Nelson and Paetz 1992, Scott and Crossman 1973, McPhail 2007 3 B.C. Conservation Data Centre (CDC) 2008 4 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) 2005b 5 COSEWIC 2008a Notes: 6 Westslope cutthroat trout were reported in the Kiskatinaw River and Pouce Coupe River sub-basins for hatchery productions (B.C. MOE 2008b). Since this was a hatchery stock population introduced in the species non-native range, the Provincial and Federal at risk designations do not apply to any populations resulting from the introductions. 7 Peamouth chub and northern redbelly dace likely only occur in the Kiskatinaw River sub-basin 8 There is a lack of information available on population size, trends, and distribution in Alberta 9 Pearl dace and spottail shiner likely only occur in the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin 10 There is insufficient existing data on the status of populations to designate the species as provincially ‘secure’ in Alberta 11 Spoonhead sculpin have been evaluated by COSEWIC and were found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

In B.C., there are two species within the Kiskatinaw River and Pouce Coupe River sub-basins that are provincially listed and may occur in watercourses where suitable habitat conditions and connectivity occur. Bull trout may occur in both the Kiskatinaw River and Pouce Coupe River sub-basins and are listed as 'Blue', indicating they are considered vulnerable. However, bull trout most likely do not occur near the Project location since there is limited suitable habitat, and have not been recently documented near the

Page 4

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

Project location (B.C. MOE 2008b). Pearl dace are also 'blue' listed; however, they have only been previously captured in the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin. Although B.C. MOE has no records of pearl dace being captured in B.C. within the Pouce Coupe sub-basin (Williamson pers. comm.), information from Alberta (FMIS 2009).indicates they have been captured in Henderson Creek during two different sampling events (i.e., 1997 and 2005). These results suggest the greatest probability of encountering pearl dace is on the eastern side of the route in tributaries of Henderson Creek that may provide suitable habitat. However, it is possible that they occur in other parts of the Pouce Coupe sub-basin where suitable habitat and connectivity occur.

The remaining species in Table 1 are listed as 'Yellow', ‘exotic’ or ‘unknown’ in B.C. A ‘Yellow’ status means the species is apparently secure (B.C. CDC 2008). Although, native populations of spottail shiners are listed as 'Red', indicating that they are candidates for extirpated, endangered or threatened status in B.C., the only native population in B.C. is in Maxhamish Lake near the Northwest Territories-B.C. border (B.C. CDC 2008). Introduced populations of spottail shiner most likely occur in the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin; therefore, the provincial listing for this population is 'Yellow'. The closest location that spottail shiners have been documented in relation to the Project location is in the Tupper River, which is approximately 16 km upstream (B.C. MOE 2008b). A ‘Yellow’ listing also applies to the following species that are provincially listed as 'sensitive' in Alberta: Arctic grayling; largescale suckers; northern redbelly dace; and northern pikeminnow (ASRD 2005b). 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 route. Therefore, Arctic grayling populations that may occur in the Kiskatinaw River and Pouce Coupe River sub-basins are 'Yellow' listed (B.C. CDC 2008). Arctic grayling have been documented upstream of the Project location in the Kiskatinaw River; however, even though this species has historically occurred in the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin, the B.C. MOE Fisheries Inventory Data Queries (FIDQ) database (B.C. MOE 2008b) does not show that they have been recently captured near the Project location.

No recovery management plans have been developed for the fish species that are provincially listed in B.C. (B.C. MOE 2008c). However, a draft management plan has been developed for Arctic grayling in the Peace Region (Williamson pers. comm.). Although a provincial management plan for bull trout is not available, a provincial management strategy for bull trout in B.C. is available (Pollard and Down 2001). B.C. has also developed sustainable resource management and planning recommendations for watersheds where bull trout occur in the northern interior forests of B.C. (Hammond 2004). More information about the ecology and management of provincially listed species in B.C. can be found after the paragraph in this section that summarizes the provincially listed species in Alberta.

In Alberta, there are six species within the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin that are provincially listed and may occur in watercourses crossed by the pipeline. Five of these species are listed as 'sensitive' in Alberta and include: Arctic grayling; bull trout; largescale sucker; northern redbelly dace and northern pikeminnow (ASRD 2005b). The remaining species, spoonhead sculpin, are listed in Alberta as 'may be at risk' since existing data on the status of populations across the province is currently insufficient to designate the species as provincially ‘secure’ in Alberta (Clayton, pers. comm.) The closest location that B.C. MOE (2008b) and FMIS (2008) show bull trout have been documented in relation to the Project location is upstream in the Tupper River in B.C. and downstream at the confluence of the Pouce Coupe River with the Peace River in Alberta. Northern redbelly dace were also only found downstream at the confluence of the Pouce Coupe River with the Peace River in Alberta. The remaining species, Arctic grayling, largescale sucker, and northern pikeminnow may occur in the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin, but have not been previously documented near the Project location based on info in B.C. MOE (2008b) and FMIS (2008).

Alberta has implemented management and recovery plans for both of the 'sensitive' sportfish species that may occur in the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin (Berry 1994, 1998). There are no management plans for largescale suckers, northern redbelly dace, and northern pikeminnow populations in Alberta. Although Alberta considers pike and walleye as 'secure' (ASRD 2005b), both species have experienced severe population declines across most of their range and the province has implemented management and recovery plans for them (Berry 1995, 1999). Angler overharvest and habitat degradation are commonly cited in these management plans as key factors that have led to the decline of these species.

Bull trout are frequently referenced as having the most sensitive habitat requirements among trout and char species in western North America (see numerous references in Mackay et al. 1997 and Brewin et al.

Page 5

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

2001). They are a late summer to early fall spawning species that requires clean gravels and groundwater inflow for spawning. They are often a top predator in the ecosystems where they occur. Their susceptibility to angler overharvest, slow maturity, and sensitive habitat requirements, as well as competition from introduced non-native species, and habitat fragmentation, are frequently cited as factors contributing to the species decline through most of their range in North America (e.g., Brewin and Brewin 1997, Berry 1994, Pollard and Down 1991, Post and Johnson 2002).

Arctic grayling are another coldwater salmonid that occur in the vicinity of the Project area. They occupy boreal and foothill rivers and streams and occasionally small lakes. Arctic grayling spawn in the spring once water temperatures reach 5-10°C. 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. Population declines, particularly in the southern portions for their range in Alberta, are often attributed to pollution, habitat degradation and fragmentation, increasing water temperatures and overharvest by anglers (Berry 1998, ASRD 2005c).

Pearl dace occur in scattered locations throughout Alberta, and in the Mackenzie River system of northeast B.C. Although they are not federally listed (COSEWIC 2009a) or provincially listed in Alberta, they are blue-listed in B.C. (B.C. CDC 2009). Although B.C. does not have a management plan to help conserve the species, a management plan has been prepared for the U.S.D.A. Forest Service that discusses threats to the species and provides recommendations to help conserve the species (Cunningham 2006).

Pearl dace usually occur in slow moving streams and lakes. In lakes, they are typically found in water less than 2 m deep, over silt or sand, and close to vegetation. Spawning generally occurs in the early spring, in both streams and shallow vegetated areas in lakes after water temperatures reach 12-13°C; spawning often occurs over gravel, sand, and/or silt/mud substrates (Cunningham 2006, McPhail 2007, Nelson and Paetz 1992). Pearl dace are often associated with slow-moving and spring-fed watercourses, with heavy sediment accumulations (e.g., substrate composition ranges from 53 to 100% fines in streams in Montana where they have been captured (unpublished data from Bramblett in Bramblett and Zale 2004). They are also described as being moderately intolerant to turbidity (Whittier and Hughes 1998 in Bramblett and Zale 2004).

Since populations are generally, scattered and isolated, pearl dace populations are vulnerable to local disturbances, especially those that affect water quality (Nelson and Paetz 1992, McPhail 2007). Cunningham (2006) indicates that the species is sensitive to human alterations to the aquatic system, and lists their primary threats as: introductions of non-native species, particularly predatory species; water development activities that lead to habitat degradation or fragmentation (e.g., reservoir construction groundwater pumping and diversions); and loss of natural hydrogeomorphic processes (e.g., processes caused by beavers). Although Cunningham (2006) does not make any mention of linear developments being a specific threat, it indicates that pearl dace are a 'sight-seeing predator' and activities that cause long-term increases in turbidity can be expected to be deleterious.

Although spottail shiners are common across most of eastern Alberta, their range is limited on the western side of the Province. They occur near the western boundary of Alberta in the Peace River and some of its tributaries (Nelson and Patez 1992). In B.C., the only native population of spottail shiners is in Maxhamish Lake, in the lower Liard River system (McPhail 2007). They were also introduced from Alberta into Charlie Lake (near the town of Fort St. John, B.C.) as a forage fish, and introduced populations now occur in the lower Peace River in B.C. (McPhail 2007). These introduced populations, however, are not included in the ‘Red’ listed status.

Spottail shiners are typically considered an open water species and occur in large rivers and lakes; they are often found at different depths at different seasons (e.g., shallow water in summer and at depths to 30 m in the winter). Although little is known about the spawning ecology of the species, it is believed spawning occurs from the spring to late summer after water temperatures reach 11˚C. Spawning has been associated with gravel shoals along lakes and gravel riffles in streams, with egg deposition also occurring on clumps of vegetation. In Maxhamish Lake, juveniles and young-of-the-year are typically associated with shallow depths, weed beds and sandy substrates (McPhail 2007).

Page 6

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

Like spottail shiners, northern redbelly dace are common in eastern Alberta, but are relatively rare along the western border (Nelson and Paetz 1992). McPhail (2007) suggests northern redbelly dace are near their physiological or habitat limits in northeastern B.C. Both Nelson and Paetz (1992) and McPhail (2007) indicate that northern redbelly dace frequently hybridize with finescale dace where the two species occur in sympatry and pure populations are rare. Adults are typically associated with stained waters associated with bogs, beaver ponds and sluggish streams, and in fact, all collections from B.C. have come from slow, boggy streams and shallow bog lakes and usually with water that has a color similar to dark tea (McPhail 2007). They are typically found close to cover (e.g., lake margins and vegetation) in water less than 2 m deep and over silt substrates; younger life history stages reportedly share similar habitat preferences (Nelson and Paetz 1992; McPhail 2007). In Alberta spawning occurs in mid June after temperatures begin to exceed 11˚C (Nelson and Paetz 1992); spawning behavior, however, has not been reported in B.C. (McPhail 2007).

Northern pikeminnow, another cyprinid species, are primarily found in large lakes, but also occur in large rivers (Nelson and Paetz 1992; McPhail 2007). They are relatively rare in Alberta and only occur in the Peace River in Alberta (Nelson and Paetz 1992). McPhail (2007) indicates they are not a conservation concern in B.C., but are often a persecuted species due to their large size, piscivore diet, and reputation for eating anything they can swallow. Although there is one record of them being captured in the Kiskatinaw River (B.C. MOE 2008b), they are unlikely to occur, or have ciritical habitats, within the vicinity of the Project.

Largescale sucker is found in rivers and deep lakes in the Peace River system in northwestern Alberta and northeastern B.C. Although younger life history stages have been captured in Alberta, Nelson and Paetz (1992) report adults have never been collected in the Province, and therefore, there is no information on critical spawning habitat locations in Alberta. In B.C. spawning congregations have been observed in some parts of the Peace River system (e.g., Summit Lake and Crooked River [McPhail 2007]). Spawning has been documented in the spring and early summer at water temperatures between 8˚C and 16˚C. In rivers and streams, spawning occurs in riffles adjacent to slower moving water, while in lakes spawning generally occurs in shallow water over areas of coarse gravel (McPhail 2007), but they are known to utilize a wide variety of substrates, depths and velocities for spawning (McCart and Aspinwall 1970) and they are generally not considered spawning-habitat limited (Schmetterling and McFee 2006). They have also been documented to be highly migratory and undertake extensive pre and post spawning migrations, up to 160 km (Schmetterling and McFee 2006).

Spoonhead sculpin are primarily found in large rivers and coldwater streams. They are listed in Alberta as 'may be at risk' since existing data on the status of populations across the province is currently insufficient to designate the species as 'secure' (Clayton pers. comm.) Their distribution in Alberta includes the: Slave; Peace; Athabasca; North Saskatchewan; upper Red Deer; Bow; and upper Oldman River drainages. They are most abundant in river and streams in the foothills and adjacent plains (Nelson and Paetz 1992). They are bottom feeders and prefer streambeds that are comprised of boulders, cobbles, and large gravels. Spawning takes place on rocks usually in April and May. Since spoonhead sculpin are bottom feeders and often occur in large rivers, they are difficult to capture and study; therefore, basic inventory information on spoonhead sculpin population trends in Alberta is lacking (Clayton pers. comm.). However, they are known to experience population declines following habitat disturbances as evidenced by a population below the Dickson Dam in the Red Deer River. The population was monitored throughout construction of the dam and exhibited a marked decline, presumably from habitat degradation (ASRD 2005b).

1.4 Regulatory Framework The regulatory framework for construction of pipelines in Canada varies according to the jurisdiction(s) where the Project is constructed. In B.C. and Alberta, there are several federal and provincial Acts and Regulations which govern how pipeline watercourse crossing activities can be constructed and operated.

1.4.1 Federal Framework 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

Page 7

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

(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 HADDs 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 which the proponent is required to follow to prevent HADD.

In recent years, DFO has initiated measures to streamline its review and approval process. Routine reviews of lower risk activities have been replaced by clear guidelines in the form of Operational Statements (OS). The OS 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. Proponents are allowed to proceed with a project without DFO review if they meet the conditions in the applicable OS. The OS has been developed separately among regions and are different between B.C. and Alberta.

The federal Navigable Waters Protectiona Act (NWPA), administered by Transport Canada, provides a legislative mechanism for the protection of navigation on all public navigable waterways in Canada. This is accomplished through the authorization of constructed works that could potentially interfere with navigation (Transport Canada 2005). The NEB Act in Section 108 requires the proponent to obtain approval from Transport Canada for works across navigable waters. Transport Canada uses Section 108 when the crossing involves an NEB regulated pipeline. Pipeline projects which are not regulated by the NEB are considered 'minor works' when they are buried under the bed of a waterway, and if they are not located on a charted waterway, or constructed at a location where the waterway exceeds 50 m in width (Transport Canada 2007a). Projects that are considered 'minor works' by Transport Canada, and are constructed in accordance with specific standards and criteria, can be undertaken without formal approval from Transport Canada.

1.4.2 Provincial Framework in B.C. In B.C., there are several provincial acts and regulations which govern how pipelines crossing watercourses can be constructed and operated. The current document was developed to address regulatory requirements associated with the B.C. Water Act.

In B.C., the Water Act provides standards and best management practices for construction activities that require working in and around water (B.C. MOE 2008d) and to reduce disturbances to aquatic habitat and fauna that may result from instream activities associated with roads and other pipeline-related operations (B.C. Ministry of Forests [MOF] 2002). Timing windows of least risk for instream activities are also used in B.C. (B.C. Oil and Gas Commission [OGC] 2008) as a tool to reduce adverse affects of construction- related disturbances to fish species during sensitive life-history stages (Table 2).

Whether a certain activity requires a notification form or approval from B.C. MOE depends on the nature of the work (B.C. MOE 2008d). Crown land rights required for provincially-regulated oil and gas projects are acquired through a one window agency called the B.C. OGC. However, land rights for NEB (federally- regulated) oil and gas projects must be acquired from each of the appropriate provincial agencies (i.e., Master Licence to Cut from B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range [MOFR]; Section 9 Approval for Work in and About a Stream from B.C. MOE).

Pipeline watercourse crossings on NEB-regulated projects will require either approval from or notification to the B.C. MOE under Section 9 of the Water Act and Section 7 of the Water Regulations. FrontCounter B.C. centres act as a single window service for proponents to submit their Section 9 applications. FrontCounter B.C. centres will review the application to ensure completeness and then forward the application to the Water Stewardship Division of B.C. MOE for approval (or Environmental Stewardship Division for notifications). The approval process requires proponents to submit an application fee and

Page 8

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745 provide B.C. MOE with all habitat assessments, designs and plans for the proposed works that are needed to assess the impacts of the proposed works on channel stability, flood levels, fish and wildlife resources and downstream water licenses.

TABLE 2

PEACE REGION FISH TIMING WINDOWS FOR SELECTED SPECIES

Fish Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Arctic grayling 1 - - 15 Bull trout - - - - - 15 15 - - - - Burbot 15 - - - - 15 Kokanee - - - - 31 1 - - - Lake trout - - - - - 15 1 - - - Lake whitefish - - - - - 15 1 - - - Northern pike 1 30 Mountain whitefish - - - - - 15 1 - - - Rainbow trout 1 - - 15 Walleye 1 30 Yellow perch 15 - - 15 Source: B.C. OGC 2008 Note: Red indicates timing in which instream work is at the greatest risk for fish and fish habitat.

1.4.3 Provincial Framework in Alberta In Alberta, there are several provincial acts and regulations which govern how pipeline crossing activities can be constructed and operated. The current document was also developed to address regulatory requirements associated with the Alberta Water Act.

Alberta Environment (AENV), who is responsible for administering the Alberta Water Act, has implemented two Codes of Practice (COPs) to regulate watercourse crossing activities associated with pipeline crossings (i.e., Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body [AENV 2000a] and Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings [i.e., for vehicle and equipment crossings] [AENV 2000b]).

Activities that fall under the Alberta COPs do not require Water Act approval, but AENV must be notified in advance that the works are to be constructed. The COPs specify engineering and aquatic environment protection standards that must be met for the construction of a pipeline watercourse crossing and vehicle and/or equipment watercourse crossings. These standards include preferred construction methods and timing restrictions on instream activities that are based on the stream classification process which AENV applies to all watercourses in the province. The intent of the timing restrictions (i.e., restricted activity periods [RAPs]) is to protect sensitive life-history stages of fish (e.g., spawning, embryo incubation and fry emergence) from being negatively impacted by instream activities.

In Alberta, to ensure that the aquatic environment is protected, potential adverse impacts on the aquatic environment resulting from the construction of crossing activities must be adequately mitigated. To do this, proponents are required to follow Schedule 1 of both COPs and/or have a Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialist (QAES) undertake an aquatic assessment of the proposed activities and develop recommended steps that would allow the activity to proceed while ensuring the productive capacity of the aquatic environment is not compromised.

1.5 Scope of Work The following aquatic assessment involved providing written specifications from a QAES in Alberta and Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) in B.C. to minimize the impacts of the proposed activities on

Page 9

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745 the aquatic environment. For this project TERA's field crew was led by someone who was qualified in both provinces.

This report provides habitat assessments and fisheries investigations for the watercourses crossed by the pipeline for one season of sampling in B.C. For the watercourses crossed in B.C., an additional season of sampling will occur in spring/summer 2009 and will confirm fish habitat and fish use. The implications of the results from the second season work in B.C. will be summarized in a supplemental report and submitted to the NEB.

This report also provides habitat assessments and fisheries investigations for watercourses crossed by the pipeline in Alberta from the B.C.-Alberta border to LSD 7-34-79-13 W6M and from LSD 10-2-78- 12 W6M to the Alberta tie-in in LSD 2-12-79-12 W6M. A portion of the pipeline route in Alberta from LSD 7-34-78-13 W6M to LSD 10-2-79-12 W6M was not assessed during the fall 2008 surveys since this section was rerouted in March 2009. Assessments were conducted in fall 2008 in many of the watercourses being crossed, but the fall 2008 surveys occurred upstream of the watercourse crossings along the rerouted section. Since the crossing sites were not assessed previously habitat assessments and fisheries investigations will be required along the rerouted section of the pipeline during spring/summer 2009. Findings from investigations along the rerouted section will be summarized in a supplemental report and submitted to the NEB, DFO and appropriate provincial regulatory agencies. A desktop review of the potential watercourse crossings along the rerouted section of the pipeline is also included in this report.

Page 10

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

2.0 METHODS Aquatic surveys were conducted October 10-13, 2008. The field crew from TERA traversed the B.C. portion and approximately 7 km of the Alberta portion of the proposed pipeline route and located all potential watercourses. Along these portions of the route, all watercourses with defined bed and banks (as determined by the QEP/QAES) were assessed. Surveys were carried out by a two-person crew from TERA and involved an aquatic habitat assessment and fish inventories. The sampling protocol for the aquatic habitat assessments and fish inventories were the same for both provinces (i.e., B.C. and Alberta). Sampling protocol for habitat assessments and fish inventories incorporated B.C.'s Resources Information Standards Committee (RISC) standards and procedures (B.C. MOE 2001). Some data required to meet the RISC standards were collected, but have not been included in this report.

A desktop review was conducted in March 2009 on an approximately 12 km portion of the pipeline in Alberta that was rerouted in March 2009.

2.1 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 100 m downstream from the watercourse crossing location. The ZOI is the reach of the stream that is expected to be impacted from 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 QAES who takes into account a variety of factors (e.g., stream gradient, channel width, channel depth, channel morphology, flow velocity and discharge, and instream cover). The ZOI typically represents the area of the watercourse where 90% of the sediment load caused by construction activities is expected to fall out of suspension and be deposited (AENV 2000a,b).

At each transect, dominant and subdominant substrate types were visually assessed. Measurements of bankfull 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 also assessed qualitatively for each transect. Banks were referred to as left and right when facing downstream. Time, date and location (both UTM co- ordinates and legal description) 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 and Utilities (1999), enumerated and measured for length. Fish habitat was rated according to its potential to support spawning, rearing, wintering and migration. Fish habitat was rated hierarchically in decreasing order as 'optimal', 'suboptimal', 'marginal', 'poor' or 'nil'.

Where flow was encountered, discharge was measured with a Swoffer 2100 flow meter, while dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, pH and water temperature were measured with a YSI 556 Multiple Parameter System digital water quality meter. Turbidity was assessed visually.

2.2 Fish Inventories Fish inventories were conducted on the watercourses determined to have fish habitat potential during the October 10-13, 2008 survey. Supplemental information on fish communities were obtained through the B.C. Fish/Habitat Wizard databases (Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. 2008), FIDQ (B.C. MOE 2008b) for B.C., the FMIS (2008) database for Alberta and through discussions with provincial fisheries managers.

Where electrofishing occurred, a Smith Root Model LR-24 backpack electrofisher was used to capture fish. When processing was complete, fish were released back into the habitat from which they were captured. Both fish capture and processing were conducted in a manner that ensured maximum survival

Page 11

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745 of fish. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) was calculated based on the number of fish captured during the time spent actively electrofishing (i.e., number of fish captured per 100 seconds of electrofishing effort).

2.3 Desktop Review A desktop review was used to identify potential watercourses along the pipeline reroute. Information sources were visually surveyed for potential watercourses with defined bed and banks. Sources included: SPOT5 satellite photo imagery taken in 2006 of 2.5 m resolution at a 1:20,000 scale; Grande Prairie (NTS map sheet 083m) topographic map at a 1:250,000 scale; and Bonaza (NTS map sheet 083m13) topographic map at a 1:50,000 scale; any applicable findings from the fall 2008 surveys conducted on the watercourses at the original crossing sites, which were upstream of the rerouted section; and the FMIS (2009) database for Alberta.

Page 12

NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745

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

During October 10-13, 2008, there were 11 watercourse crossings inspected in the field along the current proposed pipeline route, 9 watercourses were in B.C. and 2 watercourses were in Alberta (Figures 2a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j). In addition, there were 32 drainages that lacked defined bed and banks identified along the route, 26 drainages (D1 to D26) were found in B.C. and 6 drainages (D27 to D51) were found in Alberta (Figures 2a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j). Photographs of the drainages are provided in Appendix B.

3.1 Watercourse Crossings in B.C. Of the nine watercourses identified in B.C., four occur in the Kiskatinaw River sub-basin and five occur in the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin (Figures 2a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h). In the Kiskatinaw River sub-basin the four watercourses that will be crossed include: unnamed tributary to Fox Creek (WC1); Fox Creek (WC2); the Kiskatinaw River (WC3); and unnamed tributary to Kiskatinaw River (WC4). Fox Creek is a direct tributary to the Kiskatinaw River. In the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin the five watercourses that will be crossed in B.C. include: two unnamed tributaries to Dawson Creek (WC5 and WC6); McQueen Creek (WC7); the Pouce Coupe River (WC8); and Sergeant Creek (WC9). Dawson Creek is a direct tributary to the Pouce Coupe River. McQueen Creek is a tributary to Saskatoon Creek, which is also a direct tributary to the Pouce Coupe River. In addition, Sergeant Creek is a tributary to Henderson Creek, which is also a direct tributary to the Pouce Coupe River.

Five of the nine watercourses in B.C. are suspected S6 streams (WC1, WC4, WC5, WC6, WC7) which are less than or equal to 3 m wide and may be nonfish-bearing. These watercourses are suspected to be nonfish-bearing S6 streams based on one season of fish sampling. A second season of sampling will be conducted to confirm the S6 stream designation and may result in findings that warrant a fish-bearing S4 (WC1, WC4, WC5, WC7) or S3 (WC6) stream designation instead of the current S6 designation.

The four remaining watercourses in B.C. were confirmed as fish-bearing during the first season of sampling. Two of the four watercourses, Fox Creek (WC2) and Sergeant Creek (WC9), are S3 streams that are greater than 1.5 m wide, but less than 5.0 m wide. The remaining two are the Kiskatinaw River (WC3) and the Pouce Coupe River (WC8) which are S1 streams greater than 20 m wide.

Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) have been developed for each stream class in B.C.'s Forest Practices Code. Table 3 provides the RMA's for the stream classes crossed by the Project.

TABLE 3

RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT AREAS FOR STREAM CLASSES OF THE WATERCOURSES IN B.C. THAT ARE CROSSED BY THE PROJECT

Stream Average Channel Reserve Zone Management Zone Total RMA Class Width (m) Width (m) Width (m) Width (m) S1 (fish-bearing) >20.0 50 20 70 S3 (fish-bearing) 1.5 - 5.0 20 20 40 S4 (fish-bearing) <1.5 0 30 30 S6 (nonfish-bearing) <3.0 0 20 20 Source: B.C. MOF 1995

Page 13

10 11 12 7 8 9

TWP. 79, RGE. 19 W6M TWP. 79, RGE. 18 W6M

k 3 e

2 1 e 6 5 4

e l u o C

! D2 Groundbirch D3 Receipt Meter Station D4

2-3-79-19 W6M ! S

! ! F

33 34 35 36 31 32 2

TWP. 78, RGE. 19 W6M TWP. 78, RGE. 18 W6M

28 27 26

i 25 t RGE. 12 W6M RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 i RGE. 13

SCALE: 1:20,000 Alberta FIGURE 2A h 29

30 m C TWP. 80 o

0 200 400 600 m

(All Locations Approximate) i NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED 26 a GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79

DATA SOURCES: ! Drainage Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; TWP. 78 Drainage: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey). Proposed Pipeline

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.

5745_ESA_Fig2A_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd TWP. 79, RGE. 18 W6M TWP. 79, RGE. 17 W6M 4 3 2 1 6

K is k a t in a w R iv er

F TWP. 78, RGE. 17 W6M RGE. 78, TWP.

U !

2 32 33 34 35 36

k e e r C x o F TWP. 78, RGE. 18 W6M

D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

D14 S

WC1 WC2 E

! F

U R

29 28 27 26 25 30E

B C

t RGE. 12 W6M

RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 i RGE. 13 Alberta SCALE: 1:20,000 s k FIGURE 2B h e

m C e TWP. 80 o r

0 200 400 600 m C

(All Locations Approximate) i x NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED a Fo GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 Proposed 20Pipeline this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors21 in the data may be present.

5745_ESA_Fig2B_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd 31 32 33 34 35 TWP. 78, RGE. 18 W6M 78, TWP. RGE.

D ! !

S WC3 E WC4

F D15 D16

U ! R ! !

E 26 30 29 28 27

2 Tremblay / Tremblay No. 2

B Receipt Meter Stations WC5 8-27-78-17 W6M

TWP. 78, RGE. 17 W6M

r e iv R aw tin Kiska

19 20 21 22 23

t RGE. 12 W6M RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 i RGE. 13

SCALE: 1:20,000 Alberta FIGURE 2C h

m C TWP. 80 o

0 200 400 600 m

(All Locations Approximate) i NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED a GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79

! Watercourse Crossing DATA SOURCES: Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; TWP. 78 Watercourse Crossing, Drainage: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; ! Drainage Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey). 13 18 17 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 Proposed Pipeline this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.

5745_ESA_Fig2C_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd TWP. 79, RGE. 16 W6M E 2 E R U G I F E E S

33 D19 32 34 35 36 D18 31

! !

S D17

F ! I

TWP. 78, RGE. 17 W6M TWP. 78, RGE. 16 W6M

ek re 27 30 29 C 28 26 25 Da ws on

17 18 19 20 21 22

24 r 23 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 i RGE. 13 RGE. 12 W6M RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 t

SCALE: 1:20,000 i Alberta

FIGURE 2D s

m C

TWP. 80 o

l 0 200 400 600 u

(All Locations Approximate) b

i NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED a GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79

DATA SOURCES: ! Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, Drainage Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; TWP. 78 Drainage: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey). Proposed Pipeline

5745_ESA_Fig2D_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd TWP. 79, RGE. 16 W6M TWP. 79, RGE. 15 W6M

2 1 6 5 4 3

D21 F 2 E R U G I F E E S

D22

! !

E !

E D20

G WC6 31 32 33 U 34 ! 35 36

TWP. 78, RGE. 15 W6M TWP. 78, RGE. 16 W6M

D k awson Cree

30 29 28 27 26 25

t RGE. 12 W6M

RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 Alberta RGE. 13 RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 i

SCALE: 1:20,000 s FIGURE 2E h

m C TWP. 80 o

l 0 200 400 600 u m

(All Locations Approximate) i NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED a GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79

! Watercourse Crossing DATA SOURCES: Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, Licensed23 by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; TWP. 78 24 19 20 21 22 Watercourse Crossing, Drainage: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; ! Drainage Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey).

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 Proposed Pipeline this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.

5745_ESA_Fig2E_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd