Prepared For: Prepared By

Westcoast Energy Inc. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

APPENDIX 4

AQUATIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED T-NORTH 2012 EXPANSION PROJECT

Page A4-1

TECHNICAL FIELD REPORT: 2011 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED WESTCOAST ENERGY INC. T-NORTH 2012 EXPANSION PROJECT

November 2011 7261

Prepared for: Prepared by:

TERA Environmental Consultants Westcoast Energy Inc. Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 carrying on business as: Ph: 403-265-2885 Spectra Energy Transmission (Westcoast)

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Objectives ...... 1 1.3 Environmental Setting ...... 3 1.4 Fish Community ...... 4 1.5 Regulatory Standards ...... 6 1.5.1 Federal Standards ...... 7 1.5.2 Provincial Standards ...... 7 2.0 METHODS ...... 8 2.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment Methods ...... 8 2.2 Fish Inventory Methods ...... 8 2.3 Riparian Vegetation Methods ...... 9 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 10 3.1 Watercourse Crossings ...... 10 3.2 Aquatic Habitat Results ...... 11 3.2.1 Fish Habitat Potential ...... 12 3.3 Fish Inventory Results...... 14 3.4 Instream Timing Window of Least Risk ...... 17 3.5 Riparian Vegetation Results ...... 17 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 19 4.1 Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods ...... 19 4.2 Recommended Contingency Pipeline Crossing Methods...... 23 4.3 Recommended Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods ...... 23 4.4 Recommended Riparian Area Management ...... 23 4.5 Recommendations for Non-Classified Drainages ...... 24 5.0 MITIGATION ...... 25 5.1 Standard Mitigation ...... 25 5.2 Mitigation for Trenched Pipeline Crossing Methods ...... 26 5.3 Mitigation for Dry Open Cut Pipeline Crossing Methods ...... 27 5.4 Mitigation for Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods ...... 27 5.4.1 Mitigation for Temporary Culvert Crossings ...... 28 5.5 Mitigation for Riparian Area Management ...... 28 5.6 Mitigation for Navigable Watercourses ...... 29 6.0 SUMMARY/CLOSING ...... 30 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 31 7.1 Literature Cited ...... 31

Page i

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Watercourse Crossing Site Records ...... A-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location and Proposed Crossings ...... 2 Figure 2 Fish Symbol Map for Watercourse Crossings ...... 20

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Fish Species that may Occur in the Peace River Watershed Group Within the Project Area ...... 4 Table 2 Timing Windows of Least Risk for the Peace Region in British Columbia ...... 7 Table 3 Previous and Current UTM Co-ordinates for the Proposed Watercourse Crossings ...... 10 Table 4 Riparian Management Areas for Stream Classes of Watercourses Crossed Along the Proposed Pipeline Loop ...... 11 Table 5 Summary of Water Quality Parameters and Mean Channel Characteristics ...... 13 Table 6 Summary of Fish Habitat Potential Ratings ...... 14 Table 7 Summary of Fish Sampling Effort and Results ...... 16 Table 8 Summary of Dominant Riparian Area Plant Species and Densities for Fish-Bearing Crossings Along the Proposed Pipeline Loop ...... 18 Table 9 Summary of Proposed Watercourse Crossings Along the Proposed Pipeline Loop ...... 21

Page ii

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description Westcoast Energy Inc., carrying on business as Spectra Energy Transmission (Westcoast), is applying to construct the proposed T-North 2012 Expansion Project (Project). The proposed Project consists of approximately 24 km of 1,067.0 O.D. (NPS 42) pipeline loop, on a variable width right-of-way, to provide incremental firm transmission service from receipt points along Westcoast’s Fort Nelson Mainline in the vicinity of Compressor Station N5 (CS-N5) for delivery to Compressor Station 2 (CS-2) and NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Groundbirch Pipeline. Commencing at CS-N5 within c-67-I/94-B-1, the pipeline parallels the existing Westcoast right-of-way for the majority of its length and terminates within d-7-I/94-B-1.

The proposed pipeline route parallels the existing Fort Nelson Mainline pipeline right-of-way for most of its length, with the exception of small localized diversions at Mackie Creek and Lynx Creek to optimize the watercourse crossings. The construction right-of-way is generally comprised of a 22 m of permanent right-of-way with 15 m of temporary workspace for a total width of 37 m to allow for safe, efficient workspace for pipeline construction activities. In addition to the construction right-of-way, temporary workspace will also be required at crossings, side bends, log decks and where grading is necessary, and will be identified in detailed engineering plans. Pending regulatory approval, plant modifications are scheduled to commence April 2012 where pipeline construction is scheduled to commence August 2012, with an expected in-service date of December 15, 2012. Westcoast commissioned TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA) to prepare an Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) having regard to the NEB Filing Manual, the Online Application System guidance and Section 16(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for approval to construct and operate the Project. In support of this application, TERA conducted aquatic habitat assessments and fisheries investigations along the proposed pipeline loop.

This report describes the methods and results of the open water aquatic assessment conducted during July 2011 and a second season of fish sampling conducted during September 2011, as well as mitigation recommendations for the construction of the Project. The aquatic assessment focuses on documenting baseline conditions and providing written specifications from an Aquatic Specialist to help ensure the productive capacity of the aquatic environment is maintained. The local study area (LSA) and regional study area (RSA) for the proposed pipeline loop are defined in Section 6.0 of the ESA for this project (TERA 2011). Evaluations of significance of potential residual effects on fish and fish habitat, and water quantity and quality, are provided in Section 6.0 of the ESA for this project (TERA 2011).

1.2 Objectives The objectives of the aquatic assessments were to:

• traverse the proposed pipeline loop on the ground during open water conditions (i.e., July 2011) to confirm whether potential crossings have defined bed and banks (i.e., watercourses) or are non-classified drainages (NCDs);

• document fish use, aquatic habitat conditions and fish habitat potential in the vicinity of the proposed watercourse crossings;

• provide written specifications from a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) to ensure the quantity and productive capacity of the aquatic environment is not compromised by the proposed activities;

• conduct second season sampling (i.e., September 2011) at several proposed watercourse crossings in order to confirm their fish-bearing status; and

• provide environmental regulatory support and liaison.

Page 1

Hay-Zama Lakes UV97 Fort Nelson Wildland Park r ive r R ve ay R i e H Kotcho ttl Li ! ¯ FNGP ") UV58 84L 94J 94I

iver Kahntah ay R ! H

Fontas !

r e v i R

h a t n M h u Prophet River Klua Lakes a s ! K k w Protected Area a R i v N2 e ") r

Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park !Trutch

r Prophet Rive

Milligan Hills 84E 94G 94H Provincial Park er Riv ga N3 !Beatton River ha ") inc Redfern-keily Ch Provincial Park

Chinchaga Wildland Park B e at to British Columbia British n Columbia British R iv er

!Pink Mountain a t r e b l A a t r e b l A iver Chief R anni 97 Sik UV ver Ri ig Do N4 ")

Fort Nelson Mainline

!Buick Wonowon H B a ! lu l e f b BLUEBERRY w err a y Ri y v RIVER NO. 205 R er iv e r

C a m e Murdale ro ! 84D n ver R Ri i ka Graham - Laurier v ure HALFWAY e E er r Provincial Park 94B iv RIVER 168 94A R m ha 64 ra UV G Charlie Cecil Goodlow Lake ! Lake Charlie Lake 29 ! Bear Flat! UV

v i N5 Attachie! Fort St. John R !. KP 0 ") e r h e r c v e s i v Taylor e ek R i b nx Cre ce R ") CS1 a Ly a P e y N P rl o Brenot C e Williston Lake r reek ob Shearer Dale ta r ! g M e e !Beryl Prairie iv R C e r in ee ! Hudsons Hope P KP 24.3 !. k

Dinosaur Lake !Rolla 29 UV E. MOBERLY Sunset Prairie UV49 ! LAKE 169 W. MOBERLY Fort St. John Mainline Moberly L. !Groundbirch LAKE 168A Dawson Creek Wabi East Pine ! ! ! er Sundance iv r e R e Williston Pine Valley v CS2 ! n i ") ! i P R

! y Lake 97 a r K 2 UV r UV Falls i ! u Southern s k Hulcross M Mainline Lone Prairie a t i ! n 83M a Lemoray 93P w 2

93O R UV i 59 v UV CS2B e ") Gwillim Lake r Pine Lemoray Provincial Park River Provincial Park rnt Bu

Fort Nelson !

BRITISH ") Compressor Station/Facility UV892 Highway City/Town FIGURE 1 COLUMBIA Fort !. Kilometre Post Road Indian Reserve REGIONAL LOCATION St. John !

! Dawson SCALE: 1: 1,150,000 AQUATICS REPORT FOR THE Prince Creek Proposed Westcoast Loop Railway Park or Protected Area ! Rupert Project Area km PROPOSED WESTCOAST ENERGY INC. 0 5 10 15 20 25 ! Prince Westcoast Pipelines T-NORTH 2012 EXPANSION PROJECT George (All Locations Approximate)

! NAD83 UTM Zone 10N Williams Hillshade: Geobase 2008; Highways/Roads, Railways, Cities/Towns: IHS Inc. 2011; Hydrology: IHS Inc. 2004; November 2011 7261 Lake Reserves: Government of Canada 2011; Parks: BC Integrated Land Management Bureau 2008.

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product ! Kamloops or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. Mapped By: JW Checked By: JS t7261_Fig1_Aquatics.mxd

! Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

1.3 Environmental Setting The proposed pipeline loop traverses the Boreal White and Black Spruce (BWBS) and Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS) Biogeoclimatic (BGC) zones of British Columbia (BC) (BC Ministry of Forests and Range 2006). The BWBS BGC Zone is one of the largest in BC, covering approximately 10% of the province. This zone is subject to very short growing seasons. Winters are long and cold and permafrost is common in northeast parts of this zone. The most common tree species in the zone are white spruce, trembling aspen, lodgepole pine, black spruce, balsam poplar, tamarack, subalpine fir, paper birch and Alaska paper birch. Forests of variable successional stages are present in this zone due to frequent forest fires (Meidinger and Pojar 1991).

The SBS BGC Zone dominates the central interior of BC. The climate in this zone is one of extremes; winters are severe and snowy, and summers are relatively warm and moist. The winters are slightly shorter and the growing season is slightly longer than those of other boreal zones. The SBS Zone is a broad transitional area between the boreal forests to the north and the dry, cold pine-spruce forests to the south and southeast. This zone is characterized by coniferous forests dominated by hybrid spruce and subalpine fir. Lodgepole pine is common in drier mature forests in this zone (Meidinger and Pojar 1991).

The proposed pipeline loop traverses the upper Peace River sub-basin in northeast BC (BC Ministry of Environment [MOE] 2010a). The Peace River originates in the Rocky Mountains of BC. Runoff from the Rocky Mountains flows into the Finlay, Omineca and Parsnip rivers which drain into Williston Lake, a reservoir created on the Peace River with the construction of the W.A.C. Bennet Dam (Bennet Dam) in 1967. The Peace Canyon Dam, located downstream of the Bennet Dam, was constructed in 1980 to reuse water released from the spillways of the Bennet Dam. This resulted in the formation of Dinosaur Lake (BC Hydro 2010).

Dinosaur Lake is an impoundment on the Peace River approximately 21 km in length between the Bennett Dam (upstream) and the Peace Canyon Dam (downstream). Under normal operating conditions the generating station at the Peace Canyon Dam reuses the same volume of water that is released into Dinosaur Lake from the Williston Lake (BC Hydro 2010). Since the Peace Canyon Dam generating station utilizes flow from the Williston Lake rather that its own storage capacity, the water level in Dinosaur Lake remains fairly constant (Pattenden and Ash 1993).

Downstream of the Peace Canyon Dam, the Peace River flows east past the city of Fort St. John where it is joined by the Moberly and Pine rivers. Flowing northeast, the Peace River continues into Alberta where it is joined by the Wapiti, Smoky, Little Smoky and Wabasca rivers. The Peace River continues flowing across northeast Alberta until it joins the Slave River near the community of Fort Chipewyan, Alberta (Alberta Environment [AENV] 1996).

The Project traverses the Lynx and Portage creek watersheds. Within the Lynx Creek watershed, the proposed pipeline loop traverses Brenot Creek, Mackie Creek, two unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek, an unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek as well as one crossing on Lynx Creek itself. Lynx Creek originates from small tributaries draining Butler Ridge in the eastern border of the Hart foothills of the Rocky Mountains (Aquatic Resources Limited [ARL] 1998). Lynx Creek is located approximately 20 km northwest from the District Municipality of Hudson's Hope (Hudson's Hope) and flows generally southeast for approximately 35 km to its confluence with the Peace River at approximately 15 km downstream of Dinosaur Lake. Named tributaries to Lynx Creek include Mackie, Carey and Brenot creeks (BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations [MFLNRO] 2011a,b).

The Project crosses Portage Creek within the Portage Creek watershed. Portage Creek mainstem splits into two channels at the proposed crossing over approximately 6 km where flows split into Portage Creek to the north and an alternate channel approximately 700 m to the south. The mountain headwaters of Portage Creek are located approximately 17 km west of Hudson's Hope. Portage Creek flows generally east for approximately 25 km to its confluence with the Peace River, approximately 700 m downstream of the Peace Canyon Dam.

The Water Survey of Canada does not maintain a hydrometric station within the Lynx or Portage Creek watersheds. The nearest station within the vicinity of the Project is located on the Peace River. The hydrometric station on the Peace River (Station No. 07EF001) is located near the town of Hudson's Hope,

Page 3

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261 downstream from Dinosaur Lake, and has collected data from 1917 to 2009 (Environment Canada 2011). Peak and low flow periods vary following construction of the hydro dam in 1980 (Feinsten 2010). The hydrograph from this station indicates that the flow pattern of the Peace River at this location is influenced by flow regulation and seasonal events. Since flow upstream from this station is regulated by hydroelectric operations, the hydrograph does not resemble the natural seasonal flow patterns of waterbodies in the vicinity of the Project (Environment Canada 2011).

1.4 Fish Community The fish community in the Peace River Watershed Group within the Project area is a mixed assemblage of both coldwater (e.g., salmonids) and coolwater (e.g., percids and esocids) species. Table 1 provides a list of fish species that may occur in waterbodies within the Project area where suitable habitat exists.

TABLE 1

FISH SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE PEACE RIVER WATERSHED GROUP WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA

COSEWIC- Species Spawning Provincial Listed Common Name1 Scientific Name1 Code2 Season3 Status4 Species5 SPORTFISH Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus GR spring Yellow not listed rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss RT spring Yellow not listed kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka KO fall Yellow not listed bull trout Salvelinus confluentus BT fall Blue not listed lake trout Salvelinus namaycush LT fall Yellow not listed mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni MW fall Yellow not listed pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulterii PW fall / winter Yellow not listed lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis LW fall Yellow not listed burbot Lota lota BB winter / spring Yellow not listed northern pike Esox lucius NP spring Yellow not listed NON-SPORTFISH longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus LSU spring Yellow not listed white sucker Catostomus commersoni WSU spring Yellow not listed largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus CSU spring Yellow not listed lake chub Couesius plumbeus LKC spring Yellow not listed peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus PCC spring Yellow not listed longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae LNC spring / summer Yellow not listed northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos RDC spring / summer Blue not listed finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus FDC spring / summer Yellow not listed northern redbelly dace x finescale dace Phoxinus eos x Phoxinus (RDC x FDC) spring / summer Blue not listed neogaeus redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus RSC spring Yellow not listed northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis NSC spring Yellow not listed trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus TP spring / summer Yellow not listed slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus CRI spring Yellow not listed spoonhead sculpin Cottus ricei CCG spring Yellow not at risk prickly sculpin Cottus asper CAS spring Yellow not listed Sources: 1 McPhail 2007, BC MFLNRO 2011a 2 BC MFLNRO 2011a 3 Scott and Crossman 1973, McPhail 2007 4 BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) 2011 5 Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2011a

Page 4

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

No fish species listed as 'at risk' by the COSEWIC are known to occur in waterbodies within the Project area (COSEWIC 2011a). However, Arctic grayling, lake whitefish, pygmy whitefish and slimy sculpin populations in BC are mid-priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2011b). Two species that may occur within the Project area (bull trout and northern redbelly dace) are Blue-listed in BC, indicating that they are considered 'vulnerable' in the province (BC CDC 2011). Hybrids between northern redbelly dace and finescale dace are also Blue-listed (BC CDC 2011).

The following descriptions summarize the distribution and habitat use of fish species that may occur in the Project area that are provincially Blue-listed or federally listed as mid-priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC.

Bull Trout Bull trout are a Blue-listed species found in most large inland drainage systems in BC (BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection [MWLAP] 2004a, McPhail 2007). Bull trout are documented to occur in the Moberly and Peace rivers, Johnson Creek and Dinosaur and Williston lakes (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, Pattenden and Ash 1993, Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. [Triton] 2010). Bull trout have been reported in lower Lynx Creek approximately 28 km from the proposed pipeline crossing near the confluence of the Peace River (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b).

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, Brewin et al. 2001). They are a late summer to early fall spawning species that require 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., Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2009, Brewin and Brewin 1997, Berry 1994, Pollard and Down 2001, Post and Johnson 2002).

The Peace Region has introduced restrictive angling regulations and established Wildlife Habitat Areas to conserve high value habitat and spawning areas for bull trout (BC MOE 2010b). Bull trout management strategies are discussed in Pollard and Down (2001), BC MWLAP (2004a) and Martin et al. (2004). Within the Upper Peace River Watershed Group, the status of bull trout was 'presumed healthy', meaning that the population is "viable for at least twenty years if no new threats are added to the watershed and data are available for populations in the watershed or there was an absence of significant threats and there was a known occurrence of bull trout in the watershed" (BC MWLAP 2002).

Northern Redbelly Dace Northern redbelly dace are a Blue-listed species that occur sporadically in the Upper Peace River Watershed Group, and McPhail (2007) suggests they are near their physiological or habitat limits in northeast BC. There are no previous records of northern redbelly dace in any of the potential waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline loop (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Northern redbelly dace frequently hybridize with finescale dace where the two species occur in sympatry and pure populations are rare (Nelson and Paetz 1992, McPhail 2007). Adults are typically associated with stained waters associated with bogs, beaver ponds and sluggish streams; in fact, all collections from BC have come from slow, boggy streams or shallow bogs and lakes, usually with water that is stained with a colour 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). Spawning behavior has not been reported in BC (McPhail 2007); however, in Alberta, spawning occurs in mid-June once water temperatures start to exceed 11°C (Nelson and Paetz 1992).

Arctic Grayling Arctic grayling are a Yellow-listed coldwater salmonid species that occur in the Upper Peace River Watershed Group within the Project area (McPhail 2007). Arctic grayling are also federally listed as

Page 5

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261 mid-priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2011b). Arctic grayling populations are confined to cold and cool water habitats and are especially sensitive to habitat degradation and angler overharvest (McPhail 2007). They spawn during spring shortly after ice-off from early to late May when water temperatures reach about 4°C (McPhail 2007). Spawning generally occurs in the shallow glides and pools of smaller tributary streams. Unlike many other salmonids, Arctic grayling are broadcast spawners and do not construct redds.

Arctic grayling are found in Dinosaur and Williston lakes, Lynx Creek and the Peace River (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, Triton 2010, Pattenden and Ash 1993). Arctic grayling have been recorded in lower Lynx Creek at the Peace River confluence (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Although the Williston Watershed Arctic grayling population was once considered distinct from other Arctic grayling populations in the province, they are no longer considered to be a distinct form of Arctic grayling (BC MOE 2010c).

Lake Whitefish Lake whitefish, a Yellow-listed species, are primarily found in lakes, although there are riverine populations in the upper Peace and Liard River basins (McPhail 2007). Within BC, lake whitefish are also currently considered a mid-priority candidate for a detailed COSEWIC status assessment (COSEWIC 2011b). Lake whitefish are documented to occur in Williston and Dinosaur lakes and the Moberly and Peace rivers (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, Pattenden and Ash 1993). Like other whitefish species, lake whitefish prefer coolwater habitats and spawn during the fall, generally between September and December. The timing of spawning varies with lake size and latitude (McPhail 2007). Lake whitefish are broadcast spawners and do not build nests. Spawning takes place over firm coarse substrates, or occasionally sand (Scott and Crossman 1973). Eggs incubate in the substrate through winter until fry emerge in April or May (Scott and Crossman 1973).

Pygmy Whitefish Pygmy whitefish are a Yellow-listed species, and are a mid-priority candidate for a detailed COSEWIC status assessment (COSEWIC 2011b). In northern BC, pygmy whitefish are found in coldwater lakes and rivers in both turbid and clear water habitat (McPhail 2007). Pygmy whitefish are reported to occur in Williston Lake and in the Peace River near its confluence with the Moberly River (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). In rivers, pygmy whitefish are usually found over coarse gravel or cobble substrate in areas with moderate to swift current (McPhail 2007). Pygmy whitefish are broadcast spawners and spawn in shallow water during late fall or early winter. All documented spawning sites are in inlet streams. Eggs incubate through winter and fry emerge during spring or early summer (McPhail 2007, Scott and Crossman 1973).

Slimy Sculpin Slimy sculpin are a Yellow-listed species widely distributed throughout the BC interior. Listed as a mid-priority candidate for a detailed COSEWIC status assessment, they are documented to occur in Williston and Dinosaur lakes, Lynx Creek and the Peace Rivers (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, Pattenden and Ash 1993). In northern BC, slimy sculpin occur in lakes, ponds, streams and rivers. In flowing water they are often found over coarse substrate in areas with moderate to fast current (McPhail 2007). Slimy sculpin typically spawn during spring once water temperatures rise above 4°C, which can be as late as mid-May in northern BC (McPhail 2007). Territorial males excavate nests under rocks and females release sticky eggs which adhere to the nest rock. Males guard the nest and eggs until emergence (McPhail 2007).

1.5 Regulatory Standards The regulatory framework for the construction of pipelines in Canada varies according to the jurisdiction(s) where the Project is constructed. In BC there are federal and provincial Acts and regulations which govern how pipeline watercourse crossing activities can be constructed and operated. The description below discusses the regulatory framework associated with pipeline construction under the BC Water Act, the federal Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA).

Page 6

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

1.5.1 Federal Standards 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 by means other than fishing and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. The Fisheries Act has provisions that: prohibit the deposition of deleterious substances into waters used by fish; provide flow of water and safe passage of fish; require water intakes and diversions to have a fish guard or fish screen; and require proponents to submit plans and specifications 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 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 HADD is unlikely to occur, they will issue the proponent a letter of advice (LOA). An 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 (OSs). 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. Proponents are allowed to proceed with a Project without DFO review if they meet the conditions in the applicable OS.

Under the federal 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.

1.5.2 Provincial Standards In BC, the Water Act provides standards and mitigative measures for construction activities that require working in and around water (BC MOE 2008) in order to reduce disturbances to aquatic habitat and fauna that may result from instream activities associated with roads and other pipeline-related operations (BC Ministry of Forests [MOF] 2002). Timing windows of least risk for instream activities are used in the Peace Region of BC as a tool to reduce adverse effects of construction-related disturbances to fish species during sensitive life history stages (Table 2) (BC MOE 2010d).

TABLE 2

TIMING WINDOWS OF LEAST RISK FOR THE PEACE REGION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

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 MOE 2010d

Pipeline watercourse crossings on NEB-regulated projects require either approval from, or notification to the BC MFLNRO 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 MFLNRO 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 7

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

2.0 METHODS Open water aquatic assessments were conducted July 13 to 16, 2011 by two two-person field crews, each led by a qualified fish biologist. A second season of fish sampling was conducted October 14 to 16, 2011. During the July 2011 aquatic assessments, the proposed pipeline loop was traversed to assess all of the watercourses as defined by the Fish-stream Identification Guidebook (BC MOF 1998) with defined bed and banks (as determined by the QEP). The assessments involved aquatic habitat assessments and fish inventories. Sampling protocol for habitat assessments and fish inventories incorporated BC's Resource Information Standards Committee standards (RISC) and procedures (BC MOE 2001). Data required to meet the RISC standards were collected; however, some of the data may not be included in this report.

2.1 Aquatic Habitat Assessment Methods Habitat assessment data were collected upstream, downstream and at the proposed crossings. Most transects were located within the zone-of-influence (ZOI), either at the proposed crossings or downstream. The length of the study reach (i.e., ZOI) was determined for each crossing in the field based on the professional experience and judgement of the QEP who took 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 based on substrate sizes listed in Bain and Stevenson (1999). Measurements of bankfull width, wetted width, bank height and water depth were recorded to the nearest 0.1 m. Bank texture and shape were 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 at each crossing. Averages were calculated for channel characteristic measurements (i.e., bankfull width, wetted width, water depth and bank height) and recorded at each transect for a mean value of the study reach of each proposed crossing.

Morphological and riparian vegetation characteristics that contribute to fish habitat potential within the study area were described and photo documented. These included channel pattern and channel characteristics, evidence of flooding and dominant cover types at each proposed crossing. Macro habitat units throughout the study area were identified according to Bisson et al. (1981) and Alberta Transportation (2001) enumerated and measured for length. Proposed crossings with beaver activity were also noted. Fish habitat was rated according to its potential to support spawning, rearing, wintering and migration. Fish habitat potential was rated hierarchically in decreasing order as 'optimal', 'suboptimal', 'marginal', 'poor', 'unsuitable' or 'nil'. Fish habitat potential ratings were assigned for some of the fish species that would most likely be present in the study reach of each proposed crossing.

Water quality parameters were measured at each proposed crossing 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 650 Professional Plus digital water quality meter. Turbidity was visually assessed.

2.2 Fish Inventory Methods Fish sampling was conducted from July 13 to July 16, 2011 and second season of fish sampling was conducted September 14 to 16, 2011. A second season of sampling was conducted on watercourses that required their fish-bearing status be confirmed.

Fish communities were sampled, where water levels permitted, using a Smith Root Model LR-24 backpack electrofisher and baited gee 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 for length to the nearest millimetre and had their sex and life history stage recorded (if discernible externally). When processing was complete, fish were released back into the habitat from which they were captured.

Page 8

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

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 or per one hour of minnow trapping effort).

Supplemental information on fish communities in the area was obtained from relevant literature and BC databases (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Previously documented fish distribution and fish habitat information from the following relevant literature was reviewed for the proposed watercourse crossings identified along the pipeline loop:

• area-specific database search results from BC MFLNRO (2011a,b);

• Westcoast Energy Inc. Farrell, Mackie and Brenot creeks Pipeline Maintenance Fisheries Habitat Assessment (Diversified Environmental Services [DES] 1995);

• 1998 Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of Farrell and Lynx Creek Headwaters and Associated Streams in the Dunlevy Landscape Unit (ARL 1998);

• Fisheries Enhancement Options for Dinosaur Lake, A Review (Pattenden and Ash 1993);

• Site C fisheries studies – Juvenile fish use and habitat inventory of Peace River tributaries in summer 2008 (Mainstream Aquatics Ltd [MAL] 2009);

• Peace River Fisheries Investigation ‐ Peace River Tributary Spring Spawning Migration, Tributary Summer Juvenile Rearing and Radio Telemetry Studies 2006 (AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd. and LGL Limited [AMEC & LGL] 2008a);

• Peace River Fish and Aquatics Investigations ‐ Peace River and Tributary Summer Fish Distribution, Habitat Assessment and Radio Telemetry Studies 2005 (AMEC & LGL 2008b);

• GMSWORKS #8 - Dinosaur Reservoir Demonstration Tributary: Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Portage and Bullrun Creek Diversions (Triton 2011a);

• GMSMON #14 - Dinosaur Reservoir Tributary Habitat: Effectiveness Monitoring for the Portage and Bullrun Creek Diversions, Year 1 - Baseline Conditions (Triton 2011b); and

• The History of Fish Introductions (to 2005) in the Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Area (Langston and Murphy 2008).

2.3 Riparian Vegetation Methods At each proposed fish-bearing crossing, the dominant riparian area plant species and species composition were identified and recorded as part of the rare plant habitat assessment conducted for the proposed pipeline loop. The approximate density (plants/m2) of woody material (i.e., trees and shrubs) was also determined based on visual estimation of the preconstruction density of tree and shrub species.

Page 9

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The following subsections describe the results of the open water aquatic assessments conducted in July 2011 as well as the second season fish sampling conducted in September 2011. Site data and photographs for all of the proposed watercourse crossings are provided in Appendix A.

3.1 Watercourse Crossings There were eight proposed watercourse crossings identified along the proposed pipeline loop. Six of the eight watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline loop were located within the Lynx Creek watershed (Figure 1). They were Mackie Creek, Lynx Creek, Brenot Creek, unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13 and the unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19. The remaining two proposed watercourse crossings, Portage Creek and the unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68, identified along the proposed pipeline loop were located within the Portage Creek watershed.

Following the completion of the open water aquatic assessments conducted in July 2011 along the proposed pipeline loop, minor route re-alignments occurred at all eight of the proposed watercourse crossings. Since these minor route re-alignments only moved the proposed watercourse crossings a short distance upstream or downstream they are still within the expected ZOI and fish sampling zone and the aquatic assessment data collected during the July 2011 assessments is still relevant (Table 3). However, additional habitat information and photographs at the re-aligned proposed crossings on Mackie and Lynx creeks were collected during the second season of fish sampling in September of 2011. The habitat data and photographs from September 2011 for these two proposed watercourse crossings from the re-aligned routing is presented in this report, while the habitat data and photographs collected in July 2011 is presented for the remaining six proposed watercourse crossings.

TABLE 3

PREVIOUS AND CURRENT UTM CO-ORDINATES FOR THE PROPOSED WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS

UTM Co-ordinates (NAD83, Zone 10) Approx. Distance Previous Crossing Current Crossing as from Previous Site No. Name KP1 as of July 2011 of September 2011 Crossing WC 1 Unnamed tributary 1.01 E: 556617 E: 556649 34 m upstream to Mackie Creek N: 6230105 N: 6230118 WC 2 Unnamed tributary 1.13 E: 556626 E: 556659 34 m upstream to Mackie Creek N: 6230007 N: 6230000 WC 3 Mackie Creek 3.32 E: 556820 E: 556925 155 m downstream N: 6227945 N: 6227834 WC 4 Lynx Creek 7.52 E: 557879 E: 557948 125 m downstream N: 6223879 N: 6223832 WC 5 Unnamed tributary 8.19 E: 557897 E: 557932 35 m downstream to Lynx Creek N: 6223201 N: 6223199 WC 6 Brenot Creek 12.78 E: 558171 E: 558221 53 m downstream N: 6218632 N: 6218620 WC 7 Portage Creek 17.96 E: 558448 E: 558481 33 m downstream N: 6213452 N: 6213447 WC 8 Unnamed tributary 18.68 E: 558491 E: 558523 15 m downstream to Portage Creek N: 6212709 N: 6212723 Notes: 1 Based on routing information dated September 2011.

Three watercourses investigated were determined to be fish-bearing following the first season of sampling (i.e., July 13 to 16, 2011). Mackie and Lynx creeks were determined to be S2 streams based on fish presence at the proposed crossings and an average channel width between 5 m and 20 m. Brenot Creek was determined to be an S3 stream since fish were present and the mean bankfull width was between 1.5 m and 5 m.

Page 10

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

None of the remaining five watercourses (unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13, unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19, Portage Creek and unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68) were found to contain fish during the first season of fish sampling. Second season sampling at these watercourses did not yield the capture of any fish, and confirmed that these five watercourses were determined to be S6 streams since they are nonfish-bearing and have an average channel width less than 3 m.

Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) have been developed for each stream class in BC's Forest Practices Code (BC MOF 1995). Table 4 provides the RMAs for the stream classes crossed by the proposed pipeline loop.

TABLE 4

RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT AREAS FOR STREAM CLASSES OF WATERCOURSES CROSSED ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOP

Average Channel Width Reserve Zone Management Zone Total RMA Stream Riparian Classification (m) Width (m) Width (m) Width (m) S2 (fish-bearing) 5-20 30 20 50 S3 (fish-bearing) 1.5-5 20 20 40 S6 (nonfish-bearing) ≤3 0 20 20 Source: BC MOF 1995

3.2 Aquatic Habitat Results This subsection summarizes the results of the aquatic habitat assessment conducted at the eight proposed watercourse crossings identified along the proposed pipeline loop. Table 5 and the site records in Appendix A provide site-specific data and photographs for each proposed crossing. Habitat data in Table 5 and in Appendix A for Mackie and Lynx creeks is from September 2011 due to the minor route re-alignments, while habitat data for the remaining six proposed crossings is from July 2011.

Each of the eight watercourses had flowing open water at the time of open water aquatic assessment in July 2011. Beaver activity was identified at the proposed crossings on Mackie, Lynx and Brenot creeks.

Mackie and Lynx creeks also had water present during September 2011. During the second season of fish sampling in September 2011, low water levels and sections of dry channel were encountered at the unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13 and unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19. The channel at unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68 was dry throughout the reach.

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. The pH levels were measured at all of the eight sites and were within the CCME (2007) preferred range for aquatic life (Table 5).

The CCME (2007) dissolved oxygen guideline for coldwater biota has a lower limit of 9.5 mg/L in early life stages and 6.5 mg/L in other life stages. For warm water biota, the lower limit is 6.0 mg/L during early life stages and 5.5 mg/L for other life stages. At two of the proposed watercourse crossings, unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13, dissolved oxygen concentrations met the criteria for all life stages of both cold and warm water biota. The dissolved oxygen concentrations at Mackie Creek, Lynx Creek, Brenot Creek, Portage Creek and unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68 did not meet the criteria for early life stages of coldwater biota; however, were within the preferred range for later life stages of coldwater biota and all life stages of warm water biota. At the unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19, the dissolved oxygen concentration was below the CCME guidelines for the protection of aquatic life in all life stages.

Page 11

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

3.2.1 Fish Habitat Potential Fish habitat potential was rated for Arctic grayling, bull trout, longnose sucker and lake chub, four fish species that may occur near the proposed watercourse crossings and have divergent habitat requirements. Table 6 summarizes the habitat potential for the proposed watercourse crossings.

Within the study reach of the unnamed tributary to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01, spawning habitat for Arctic grayling and bull trout was rated as 'poor', 'marginal' for longnose sucker, and 'marginal to poor' for lake chub. Rearing habitat was 'poor' for all species but longnose sucker in which 'marginal' rearing habitat was identified. Overwintering and migration within this study reach was rated as 'unsuitable' and 'marginal', respectively. The spawning, rearing and migration habitat potential at unnamed tributary to Mackie Creek at KP 1.13 was rated as 'unsuitable' for all rated fish species. Mackie Creek was rated as having 'optimal' migration habitat potential and 'poor' for spawning, rearing and overwintering habitat potential for all four evaluated fish species.

Lynx Creek received a habitat potential rating of 'marginal' for Arctic grayling and bull trout spawning, rearing and overwintering habitat. Longnose sucker habitat was rated as 'suboptimal' for spawning and rearing, and 'marginal' for overwintering. The habitat at Lynx Creek was rated as 'suboptimal' for lake chub for all habitat parameters excluding migration which was rated as 'marginal' for all fish species. At the unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek, all habitat parameters were rated as 'unsuitable' for all fish species with the exception of migration habitat, which was rated as 'nil'.

In Brenot Creek, the habitat potential for Arctic grayling and bull trout was rated as 'poor' for spawning and overwintering potential, and 'marginal' for rearing. Longnose sucker spawning habitat potential was rated as 'marginal', rearing habitat was rated as 'suboptimal' and overwintering habitat potential was rated as 'poor'. Rearing and overwintering habitat potential for lake chub was rated as 'optimal' while spawning habitat potential was rated as 'suboptimal'. Migration habitat potential was rated as 'optimal' for all species for this reach of Brenot Creek.

Portage Creek was rated as having 'unsuitable' spawning habitat for all species with the exception of lake chub, which was rated as having 'poor' spawning habitat potential. Rearing habitat potential was rated as 'poor' for Arctic grayling and bull trout, 'marginal' for longnose sucker and 'optimal' for lake chub. Overwintering habitat potential was rated as 'poor' for all species except lake chub, which was rated as having 'suboptimal' habitat potential. The migration habitat potential was rated as 'suboptimal' for all evaluated fish species. The proposed crossing on the unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68 was rated as having 'poor' spawning, rearing and overwintering habitat potential for all species, and 'marginal' habitat potential at this site was rated as 'marginal' for all species.

Page 12

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND MEAN CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS

Site Water Temp. Dissolved Oxygen Mean Bankfull Mean Wetted Mean Water Dominant Subdominant Mean Bank Functional No. Name1, KP (°C) (mg/L) pH Flow (m³/s) Width (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Substrate Substrate Height (m) Bank Shape Bank Texture Riparian Width (m) Riparian Vegetation WC 1 Unnamed tributary to 10.00 12.70 7.80 0.10 2.70 2.12 0.14 Small gravel Fines Left: 1.10 Left: vertical Both fines Left: 5-10 Shrub Mackie Creek Right: 1.04 Right: undercut Right: 10-20 KP 1.01 WC 2 Unnamed tributary to 12.80 10.50 8.27 <0.01 0.82 0.70 0.13 Fines Cobbles Left: 0.45 Both vertical Both fines Left: <5 Mixed Mackie Creek Right: 0.43 Right: 5-10 KP 1.13 WC 3 Mackie Creek 9.00 7.30 8.20 <0.01 5.12 3.66 0.44 Fines Large gravels Left: 1.42 Left: vertical Both fines Left: 30-40 Grass KP 3.32 Right: 1.68 Right: sloping Right: 5-10 WC 4 Lynx Creek 10.40 8.30 8.18 <0.01 11.13 6.88 0.30 Fines Small gravels Left: 1.49 Left: sloping Both fines Left: 30-40 Left: Grass-Shrub KP 7.52 Right: 1.50 Right: vertical Right: 5-10 Right: Mixed WC 5 Unnamed tributary to 13.40 3.30 8.83 <0.01 0.40 1.20 0.10 Fines Organics Left:0.50 Both sloping Both fines Left: 5-10 Grass Lynx Creek Right: 0.50 Right: 5-10 KP 8.19 WC 6 Brenot Creek 15.00 8.20 7.48 0.31 4.10 4.30 0.60 Fines Small gravels Left: 1.10 Both sloping Both anthropogenic Left: 10-20 Shrub KP 12.78 Right: 0.90 Right: 5-10 WC 7 Portage Creek 14.00 7.70 7.80 0.16 1.40 4.45 0.50 Fines Fines Left: 0.30 Both sloping Both fines Left: 5-10 Shrubs KP 17.96 Right: 0.35 Right: <5 WC 8 Unnamed tributary to 15.11 6.80 7.20 0.20 1.90 3.00 0.50 Organics Fines Left: 0.86 Both sloping Both fines Left: <5 Shrub Portage Creek at Right: 0.92 Right: <5 KP 18.68 Notes: 1 Habitat data for Mackie and Lynx creeks is from September 2011, while the habitat data for the remaining six proposed crossings is from July 2011.

Page 13

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL RATINGS

Fish Habitat Potential Ratings Site No. Name Fish Species Spawning Rearing Overwintering Migration WC 1 Unnamed tributary Arctic grayling 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Unsuitable' 'Marginal' to Mackie Creek bull trout 'Poor' 'Poor' KP 1.01 longnose sucker 'Marginal' 'Marginal' lake chub 'Poor to Marginal' 'Poor' WC 2 Unnamed tributary Arctic grayling 'Unsuitable' 'Unsuitable' 'Unsuitable' 'Unsuitable' to Mackie Creek bull trout KP 1.13 longnose sucker lake chub WC 3 Mackie Creek Arctic grayling 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Optimal' KP 3.32 bull trout longnose sucker lake chub

WC 4 Lynx Creek Arctic grayling 'Marginal' 'Marginal' 'Marginal' 'Marginal' KP 7.52 bull trout 'Marginal' 'Marginal' 'Marginal' longnose sucker 'Suboptimal' 'Marginal' to 'Marginal' 'Suboptimal' lake chub 'Suboptimal' 'Suboptimal' 'Suboptimal' WC 5 Unnamed tributary Arctic grayling 'Unsuitable' 'Unsuitable' 'Unsuitable' 'Nil' to Lynx Creek bull trout KP 8.19 longnose sucker lake chub WC 6 Brenot Creek Arctic grayling 'Poor' 'Marginal' 'Poor' 'Optimal' KP 12.78 bull trout 'Poor' 'Marginal' 'Poor' longnose sucker 'Marginal' 'Suboptimal' 'Poor' lake chub 'Suboptimal' 'Optimal' 'Optimal' WC 7 Portage Creek Arctic grayling 'Unsuitable' 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Suboptimal' KP 17.96 bull trout 'Unsuitable' 'Poor' 'Poor' longnose sucker 'Unsuitable' 'Marginal' 'Poor' lake chub 'Poor' 'Optimal' 'Suboptimal' WC 8 Unnamed tributary Arctic grayling 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Poor' 'Marginal' to Portage Creek bull trout at KP 18.68 longnose sucker lake chub

3.3 Fish Inventory Results Fish inventories were conducted at all eight of the proposed watercourse crossings during the open water assessments in July 2011. Fish were captured at Lynx and Brenot creeks in July 2011. Fish were not captured in the remaining six watercourses. These six watercourses required a second season of fish sampling to confirm their fish-bearing status. However, it was anticipated that Mackie Creek was fish- bearing since fish were previously documented within the proposed crossing (DES 1995). A second season of fish sampling was conducted in September 2011. Fish were captured in Mackie Creek during the second season of sampling. No fish were captured in the remaining five watercourses during the second season of sampling. Fish sampling did not occur at the unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68 in September 2011 since it was dry. Table 7 provides a summary of fish sampling effort and results.

No provincially-listed fish species were captured during the July and September 2011 fish sampling. However, one sportfish species (i.e., rainbow trout) was captured in Mackie and Lynx creeks. No sportfish

Page 14

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261 species were captured in Brenot Creek during fish sampling; however, rainbow trout have been previously documented (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, DES 1995).

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., baited gee 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 most of the fish that may have evaded capture.

The proposed pipeline loop traverses the upper Lynx Creek watershed and the Portage Creek watershed. Existing studies have been conducted on the Lynx Creek mainstem and several of its tributaries (Mackie, Carey and Brenot creeks) (DES 1995, ARL 1998) as well as lower Portage Creek (Pattenden and Ash 1993; Triton 2011a,b; Langston and Murphy 2008) within the proximity of the Peace Canyon Dam. The lower reaches of Lynx Creek (i.e., within 2 km of the Peace River confluence) have been extensively studied (MAL 2009, AMEC & LGL 2008a,b) but studies within the Project vicinity in the upper portion of the watershed are limited.

ARL (1998) found rainbow trout to be widely distributed with the upper Lynx Creek watershed and concluded that any stream in this watershed greater than 5 m in width should be considered trout-bearing. Both BC MFLNRO (2011a,b) and DES (1995) identify the presence of a fish migration obstruction on Lynx Creek approximately 5 km upstream from the confluence with the Peace River and approximately 20 km downstream of the proposed crossings on Mackie and Lynx creeks. It appears this portion of Lynx Creek watershed upstream of the falls supports a resident population of rainbow trout only as no other fish species have been captured above the falls (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, DES 1995). However, numerous species of fish have been documented in lower Lynx Creek below the falls (MAL 2009, AMEC & LGL 2008a,b). Patteden and Ash (1993) speculated the absence of non-game fish in the upper Lynx Creek watershed could also be attributed to the lack of overwintering refugium (i.e., a lake) available to poor migrators (i.e., cyprinids) limiting the distribution in the upper Lynx Creek system to only the stronger migrators capable of the upstream migration from the Peace River.

The confluence of Brenot Creek occurs downstream of the Lynx Creek falls and no known fish migration obstructions occur within the Brenot Creek and lower Lynx Creek (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, DES 1995). Mackie Creek is located upstream of the falls on Lynx Creek. There is no existing fisheries information for the unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13 that are crossed by the proposed pipeline loop (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b) and fish sampling conducted by TERA in July and September 2011 did not yield any fish capture. The nearest location of known fish habitat is located approximately 3 km downstream in Mackie Creek, at the proposed crossing of Mackie Creek (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, DES 1995). DES (1995) attributed the capture of rainbow trout at the existing Fort Nelson Mainline crossing on Mackie Creek to higher seasonal flows enabling the temporary upstream movement from lower reaches of Mackie Creek. Rainbow trout were captured by TERA at the proposed crossing on Mackie Creek in September 2011. TERA's habitat assessment also indicated marginal fish habitat potential, concurrent with the findings in DES (1995).

Fish sampling at Lynx Creek yielded the capture of rainbow trout at the proposed crossing in July 2011. Rainbow trout have also been documented 300 m upstream at the confluence of Lynx and Carey creeks (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, ARL 1998) as well as approximately 3 km both upstream and downstream of the proposed crossing (ARL 1998).

Fish sampling in July and September 2011 at the proposed crossing on the unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19 did not document any fish capture and there were no previously documented fish records (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). ARL (1998) caught rainbow trout approximately 3 km upstream of the unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19 in Carey Creek, as well as both upstream and downstream in Lynx Creek. The aquatic habitat assessments in July 2011 reported the channel was marginally defined at the proposed crossing and has been partially in-filled approximately 25 m downstream of the proposed crossing.

Page 15

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF FISH SAMPLING EFFORT AND RESULTS

Sampling Effort Fish Species No. Fork Length Approx. No. Site No. Name, KP Summer 2011 Fall 2011 CPUE 1 Captured Captured Range (mm) Observed WC 1 Unnamed tributary to BPEF: 452 s, 462 m BPEF: 270 s, 100 m Summer 2011: 0.00 No fish captured 0 n/a 0 Mackie Creek MT: 4 traps, 83 hrs Fall 2011: 0.00 KP 1.01 WC 2 Unnamed tributary to BPEF: 111 s, 100 m BPEF: 300 s, 100 m Summer 2011: 0.00 No fish captured 0 n/a 0 Mackie Creek Fall 2011: 0.00 KP 1.13 WC 3 Mackie Creek BPEF: 387 s, 100 m BPEF: 402 s, 100 m Summer 2011: 0.00 Rainbow trout 4 143-200 1 KP 3.32 MT: 4 traps, 88 hrs Fall 2011: 1.00 WC 4 Lynx Creek BPEF: 555 s, 200 m Not conducted2 Summer 2011: 0.54 Rainbow trout 3 113-184 2 KP 7.52 Fall 2011: n/a WC 5 Unnamed tributary to BPEF: 215 s, 100 m BPEF: 177 s, 100 m Summer 2011: 0.00 No fish captured 0 n/a 0 Lynx Creek Fall 2011: 0.00 KP 8.19 2 Page 16 WC 6 Brenot Creek BPEF: 486 s, 120 m Not conducted Summer 2011: 2.47 Lake chub 12 51-72 6 KP 12.78 Fall 2011: n/a WC 7 Portage Creek BPEF: 289 s, 75 m Not conducted – dry Summer 2011: 0.00 No fish captured 0 n/a 0 KP 17.96 channel at time of Fall 2011: 0.00 survey WC 8 Unnamed tributary to MT: 6 traps, 18 hrs BPEF: 300 s, 100 m Summer 2011: 0.00 No fish captured 0 n/a 0 Portage Creek at Fall 2011: 0.00 KP 18.68 Notes: n/a: not applicable, BPEF: backpack electrofishing, MT: minnow trapping 1 CPUE is the number of fish captured per 100 seconds of electrofishing effort or the number of fish captured per one hour of minnow trapping effort. 2 Second season fish sampling not required based on fish capture in summer 2011 sampling.

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Fish sampling at Brenot Creek resulted in the capture of lake chub at the proposed crossing. Rainbow trout, lake chub and longnose sucker have also been documented approximately 3 km downstream (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, DES 1995). There are no fish records available upstream of the proposed crossing at Brenot Creek.

Portage Creek is a direct tributary to the Peace River; its confluence is located approximately 700 m downstream of the Peace Canyon Dam (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b, DES 1995). Portage and Bullrun creeks have been endorsed by the Peace River Water Use Plan (WUP) Committee as suitable tributaries to be utilized in a habitat enhancement project associated with the Dinosaur Lake reservoir (Triton 2011a,b). Currently, fish migration to and from the Portage Creek watershed is unfeasible due to impassable falls located at the confluence with the Peace River (Pattenden and Ash 1993, Triton 2011a,b). The enhancement project will see the lower 2.4 km of Portage Creek deactivated and the creation of approximately 1.8 km of new mainstem diversion channel to realign Portage Creek and Dinosaur Lake and is expected to result in over 20 km of new habitat becoming accessible to Dinosaur Lake fish (Triton 2011a,b). The proposed crossing on Portage Creek is approximately 13 km upstream of the Peace River confluence and is located within the reach of channel anticipated to be accessible to Dinosaur Lake fish upon the completion of the realignment project.

Portage Creek presently contains several isolated introduced populations of rainbow trout and longnose sucker, purportedly transported from the Peace River by local residents of the Beryl Prairie area (Langston and Murphy 2008). Baseline studies conducted in support of the proposed Portage and Bullrun Creek diversion confirmed Portage contains sufficient habitat to support all life stages of rainbow trout but suggest that low numbers of juvenile and adult fish captured in 2010 is an indication the population may be facing a limiting phenomenon (Triton 2011a). Fish sampling conducted in July and September 2011 did not yield any fish captures at Portage Creek or unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68 and impoundments were observed within the proposed crossings. The influence of beaver activity within reaches of Portage Creek was also noted during Triton's (2011a) field investigations.

3.4 Instream Timing Window of Least Risk Based on the documented presence of spring spawning species upstream and downstream of the proposed crossings and the capture of rainbow trout in July 2011 in Lynx Creek, the instream timing window of least risk for the proposed crossing of Lynx Creek is July 15 to March 31. The instream timing window of least risk for the proposed crossing of Brenot Creek is from July 15 to March 31 based on the capture of lake chub in July 2011 and previously documented spring spawners (i.e., rainbow trout). The occurrence of rainbow trout at Mackie Creek from previous investigations (DES 1995) and from fall 2011 sampling stipulates the instream timing window of least risk is also July 15 to March 31.

No fish were captured from the remaining five watercourses (unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13, unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19, Portage Creek and the unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68) in July 2011 or September 2011. Timing windows of least risk do not apply to waterbodies that are nonfish-bearing (BC MOE 2010d).

3.5 Riparian Vegetation Results Table 8 provides a summary of the dominant riparian vegetation species present at each of the proposed fish-bearing crossing. Tree, shrub, forb, grass and sedge species were identified as the dominant vegetation.

Page 17

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF DOMINANT RIPARIAN AREA PLANT SPECIES AND DENSITIES FOR FISH-BEARING CROSSINGS ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOP

Functional Instream Riparian Riparian Estimated Density Name, Legal Location Stream Work Window Management Area Width of Woody Material Site No. and KPK Class1 of Least Risk2 Area (m)1 (m) (/m2) Dominant Riparian Area Plant Species3 WC 3 Mackie Creek4 S2 July 15 to 50 Left: 30-40 Trees: 0.5 Trees: white spruce, black spruce KP 3.32 March 31 Right: 5-10 Shrubs: 1.0 Shrubs: willow species, common wild rose Forbs: narrow-leaved dock, horsetails, common yarrow, creamy peavine Grasses/Sedges: bluejoint reedgrass WC 4 Lynx Creek S2 July 15 to 50 Left: 30-40 Trees: 0.5 Trees: balsam poplar, aspen, white spruce KP 7.52 March 31 Right: 5-10 Shrubs: 0.1 Shrubs: willow species Forbs: large northern aster, clover species, cow parsnip, sweet-clover species Grasses/Sedges: reed canary grass, slough grass, timothy, Kentucky bluegrass WC 6 Brenot Creek S3 July 15 to 40 Left: 10-20 Shrubs: 0.1 Shrubs: Bebb’s willow, prickly rose, saskatoon, narrow-leaf willow, KP 12.78 March 31 Right: 5-10 aspen, poplar Forbs: Canada goldenrod, alfalfa, meadow horsetail, wild strawberry, Page 18 Page 18 American vetch, Lindley’s aster, common yarrow, northern bedstraw, showy aster, yellow avens, violet, fireweed, star-flowered false Solomon’s-seal Grasses/Sedges: small-flowered bulrush, orchard-grass, slender wheatgrass, timothy, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, foxtail barley, crested wheatgrass, Rocky Mountain fescue Note: bank rip-rapped for 5 m from water’s edge

Sources: 1 BC MOF Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF 1995) 2 BC MOE (2010d) Notes: 3 Common names have been provided; see BC CDC (2011) for scientific names. 4 Due to route realignments after the vegetation surveys were completed, vegetation details provided for this crossing may no longer be entirely accurate.

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Pending regulatory approval, construction of the Project is scheduled to occur from August to November 2012. Figure 2 summarizes the fish use, ratings for potential fish spawning habitat, and the DFO regulatory process for all watercourses along the proposed pipeline loop. Table 9 summarizes the recommended pipeline and vehicle and equipment crossing methods for the watercourses along the proposed pipeline loop.

Section 108 of the NEB Act requires the proponent to obtain approval from Transport Canada for works across navigable waters. A determination of navigability will need to be submitted to Transport Canada for all of the proposed watercourse crossings. If any of the watercourses are determined to be navigable, an application will need to be submitted to Transport Canada for the proposed pipeline, vehicle and equipment crossing methods.

4.1 Recommended Pipeline Crossing Methods Mackie, Lynx and Brenot creeks were confirmed to be fish-bearing following the aquatic assessments conducted in July and September 2011. Trenched pipeline crossing methods are recommended for these watercourses. Based on the results of the open water aquatic assessment and previously documented fish distribution and fish habitat information and if instream works only occur during the instream window of least risk of July 15 to March 15, these crossings are considered to have low sensitivity to construction if the mitigation and reclamation measures outlined in Section 5.0 of this report are implemented. Therefore, trenched pipeline crossings are acceptable.

If water is present at the time of construction, isolated trenched pipeline crossing methods are recommended. Isolated trenched pipeline crossing methods at all three proposed crossings will require case-specific reviews by DFO. If isolated trenched pipeline methods are used at Mackie, Lynx and Brenot creeks, fish salvages must be conducted prior to dewatering of the worksite. If these sites are dry at the time of construction, open cut trenched pipeline methods are recommended with notification to DFO under the Pacific Region OS for Dry Open-Cut Stream Crossings (DFO 2008a). All conditions and measures in the OS must be followed.

No fish were captured at the remaining five watercourses (unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13, the unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19, Portage Creek and the unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68) during both seasons of fish sampling (i.e., July and September 2011). Trenched pipeline crossing methods are recommended for these watercourses. Based on the results of the open water aquatic assessment, these crossings are considered to have low sensitivity to construction if the mitigation and reclamation measures outlined in Section 5.0 of this report are implemented. Therefore, trenched pipeline crossings are acceptable.

If water is present at the time of construction, isolated trenched pipeline crossing methods are recommended. If these sites are dry at the time of construction, open cut trenched pipeline methods are recommended. Since these watercourses were found to be nonfish-bearing, they do not require a case-specific review or notification to DFO for the proposed pipeline crossing methods (i.e., trenched isolated method if water is present or open-cut if dry).

It is recommended that a reclamation plan be developed for the proposed crossings at Mackie, Lynx and Brenot creeks. Mackie and Lynx creeks are fish-bearing S2 streams and Brenot Creek is a fish-bearing S3 stream. For the five remaining nonfish-bearing proposed watercourse crossings, the reclamation measures outlined in Section 5.0 of this report should be implemented.

Under Section 9 of the Water Act, BC MFLNRO notification for the recommended pipeline crossing methods are required a minimum of 45 days prior to the start of construction and adherence must be made to the applicable terms and conditions outlined in BC MOE (2010d).

Page 19

ek re l C FISH SYMBOL LEGEND el rr a Far r k F ell C ek ree re C 21 dy (!5 ¯ Rud |4 3 Section 1: Fish Use (Based on Fish Captures and Existing Data) Gr een No fish presence Yellow Only non-sportfish species present Orange Sportfish species present Red Provincially and/or federally-listed fish species at risk present

M Section 2: DFO Review Process for Preferred Pipeline and a Access Crossing Methods N5 r c KP 0 All recommended crossing techniques would be constructed r WC1 k !. Gr een i under a DFO Operational Statement and all impacts should be e W mitigable

C !! a

r One or more of the recommended crossing activities will require

r Yellow

k e p a case-specific review, but all of the impacts should be mitigable e r| o e k e r !(. o One or more of the recommended crossing activities will require r WC2 !( Red s C r a case-specific review and mitigation alone is not expected to ensure e y no net loss of productive capacity of fish habitat n a C e ! 94B1I No DFO review process required for recommended crossing 94B1J B ! r 94A4L No Colour e techniques since watercourse is non fish-bearing

r !. e T.83 R.25 W6M r| k

Section 3: DFO Review Process for Contingency Pipeline WC3 r and Access Crossing Techniques r Wapoose Gr een All contingency crossing techniques would be constructed !. under a DFO Operational Statement and all impacts should !! !( Lake be mitigable One or more of the contingency crossingL aactivitieshagart wille R oad r Yellow r| require a case-specific review, but all of the impacts !. should be mitigable 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 No contingency proposed at this crossing location or no DFO

KP 5 !. No Colour review process required for contingency crossing techniques since

Chunamun

watercourse is non fish-bearing eek l Cr d

Farr el Lake a o

R Section 4: Spawning Habitat Potential

e !.

i a Not fish habitat r p Gr een

i o a o Spawning habitat potential (for one or more sportfish species r L s Yellow r y

P e

n rated as 'marginal' or lower l x C r WC4 C y r Spawning habitat potential (for one or more sportfish species r re e Orange e !. e e rated as 'sub-optimal') k

B !! k

!( Red Spawning habitat potential (for one or more sportfish species r r| rated as 'optimal') WC5r

!. r !( Section 5: British Columbia Stream Riparian Class reek C !! Gr een S4, fish bearing <1.5 m wide Butler Ridge ey ar r| r Yellow S3, fish bearing 1.5-5 m wide Provincial Park C !. Orange S2, fish bearing >5-20 m wide Red S1, fish bearing >20 m wide C u KP 10 No Colour S5 or S6, non fish-bearing, or fish-bearing NCD s

t !.

C Cre ek y d

r Dr a

e o

e R

B r !. k

e e

n 94B1H 94A4E e 94B1G r

o C

e t l e l

r C e

C r r r

h e !. T.82 R.26 W6M T.82 R.25 W6Ma F s ek r i WC6 r n

D !( !! !. r| r

KP 15 !. Beryl Prairie ! Stowe Road

w !. v i el d

v a e R

M o R e

i c

le r

R a l

o l e ad !. i

r 29 r WC7 h rt r o N

WC8r !(. !! 29 Po y r r a ! r| ta w

! h

g g

e i H r !( C r| reek t 9 e 2

!. e y

r a

t w

S h Williston ig

r H

e t

Lake KP 20 r

a !. C 94B1B 94B1A 94A4D !. Can Hudson's Hope yon Drive ! T.81 R.26 W6M T.81 R.25 W6M !. ive ey Dr Dudl M 29 !. a 9 u 2 r y i a c hw e ig C H re KP 24.3 !. ek !.

r e v i R e c Bullrun a Cr e eek P

UV29

Dinosaur Lake 93O16J 93O16I 93P13L

M oo seb

FIGURE 2 !( Trenched Pipeline Crossing* UV3 Highway

) Compressor Station Road FISH SYMBOL MAP FOR

. Kilometre Post Access/Resource Road WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS SCALE: 1: 100,000 Proposed Westcoast Loop Park/Protected Area AQUATICS REPORT FOR THE km 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 PROPOSED WESTCOAST ENERGY INC. Existing Westcoast Pipeline *Crossing dot used to illustrate approximate location of recommended watercourse crossing (contingency pipeline method and access crossing methods not identified on map) (All Locations Approximate) T-NORTH 2012 EXPANSION PROJECT

NAD83 UTM Zone 10N November 2011 7261 Highways/Roads, Pipelines: IHS Inc. 2011; Parks/Protected Areas: BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008; Hydrology: Natural Resources Canada 2007. Mapped By: JW Checked By: JS 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. t7261_Fig2_Aquatics.mxd

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOP

Fish Species Captured or Observed During Recommended Stream Class1 Elevation Open Water Vehicle/Equipment Legal Location, and Instream Riparian Mean (m) Assessment Recommended Crossing Method Site Latitude/Longitude UTM Co-ordinates Work Window Management Bankfull above (Previously Location of Nearest Pipeline Crossing (Open Water Riparian and Bank Restoration No. Name, KP (DD-MM-SS) (NAD83, Zone 10) of Least Risk2 Area (m) Width (m) sea level Documented) Known Fish Habitat3,4 Method Conditions) Mitigation Comments WC 1 Unnamed tributary to C-057-I/094-B-01 E: 556649 S6 20 2.70 784 No fish captured or Approximately 3 km Isolate if water Clear span bridge or • Replace salvaged strippings to Unstable/undercut banks Mackie Creek 56° 12' 45.403" N, N: 6230118 Open observed downstream in Mackie present/open cut if dry culvert facilitate revegetation. observed at proposed crossing. KP 1.01 122° 5' 11.999" W (no fish previously Creek or frozen to bottom • Seed with a native grass Cascades and breached culvert documented) mixture. observed upstream at 75 m and • Use bank stabilization 25 m, respectively. measures if appropriate. WC 2 Unnamed tributary to B-057-I/094-B-01 E: 556659 S6 20 0.82 789 No fish captured or Approximately 3 km Isolate if water Clear span bridge or • Replace salvaged strippings to A spring was observed at Mackie Creek 56° 12' 41.570" N, N: 6230000 Open observed downstream in Mackie present/open cut if dry culvert facilitate revegetation. approximately 15 m downstream KP 1.13 122° 5' 11.472" W (no fish previously Creek or frozen to bottom • Seed with a native grass of proposed crossing, and a drop documented) mixture. structure (0.30 m to 0.40 m) was • Use bank stabilization observed approximately 20 m measures if appropriate. upstream. WC 3 Mackie Creek A-037-I/094-B-01 E: 556925 S2 50 5.12 734 Rainbow trout Within the crossing Isolate if water Clear span bridge • Replace salvaged strippings to Historical and recent beaver KP 3.32 56° 11' 31.404" N, N: 6227834 July 15 to (Rainbow trout) and/or ZOI, and >4 km present/open cut if dry facilitate revegetation. activity was observed throughout 122° 4' 57.750" W March 31 downstream or frozen to bottom • Seed with a native grass the study reach. Unstable/failing mixture. banks observed. • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. WC 4 Lynx Creek D-086-H/094-B-01 E: 557948 S2 50 11.13 709 Rainbow trout Within crossing and/or Isolate if water Clear span bridge • Replace salvaged strippings to Evidence of extreme flooding KP 7.52 56° 9' 21.540" N, N: 6223832 July 15 to (Rainbow trout) ZOI, and approximately present/open cut if dry facilitate revegetation. (i.e., 1 in 100 year flow event) 122° 4' 1.538" W March 31 3 km upstream and or frozen to bottom • Seed with a native grass was observed and banks noted to downstream mixture. be highly unstable. Extensive • Use bank stabilization recent beaver activity was measures if appropriate. observed throughout reach. WC 5 Unnamed tributary to A-086-H/094-B-01 E: 557932 S6 20 0.40 730 No fish captured or Approximately 3 km Isolate if water Clear span bridge or • Replace salvaged strippings to The channel is marginally defined Lynx Creek 56° 9' 1.081" N, N: 6223199 Open observed upstream in Carey present/open cut if dry culvert facilitate revegetation. at proposed crossing and KP 8.19 122° 4' 2.959" W (no fish previously Creek or frozen to bottom • Seed with a native grass becomes impounded at documented) mixture. approximately 120 m • Use bank stabilization downstream. The channel has measures if appropriate. been partially filled in approximately 25 m downstream. WC 6 Brenot Creek B-035-H/094-B-01 E: 558221 S3 40 4.10 722 Lake chub Within the crossing Isolate if water Clear span bridge • Replace salvaged strippings to Available cover and instream KP 12.78 56° 6' 32.849" N, N: 6218620 July 15 to (rainbow trout, lake chub and/or ZOI, and 3 km present/open cut if dry facilitate revegetation. vegetation has likely been 122° 3' 49.785" W March 31 and longnose sucker) downstream or frozen to bottom • Seed with a native grass affected by flood events/wash mixture. out. A breached beaver dam was • Use bank stabilization observed approximately 90 m measures if appropriate. upstream and a spring was observed on the left bank approximately 70 m upstream. WC 7 Portage Creek C-075-A/094-B-01 E: 558481 S6 20 1.90 723 No fish captured or Approximately 13 km Isolate if water Clear span bridge or • Replace salvaged strippings to A fence, pasture land and KP 17.96 56° 3' 45.434" N, N: 6213447 Open observed downstream in the present/open cut if dry culvert facilitate revegetation. man-made impoundment was 122° 3' 38.828" W (no fish previously Peace River or frozen to bottom • Seed with a native grass observed downstream of the documented) mixture. proposed crossing. • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate.

Page 21

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

TABLE 9 Cont'd

Page 22

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

4.2 Recommended Contingency Pipeline Crossing Methods It is anticipated that the recommended pipeline crossing methods for the eight proposed watercourse crossings identified along the proposed pipeline loop will be successful and no contingency pipeline methods are recommended (Table 9).

4.3 Recommended Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods The development of the pipeline may also require temporary crossings for vehicles and equipment. Wherever possible, it is recommended that access crossings to pipeline crossing locations utilize existing bridges, culverts and roads.

Construction is expected to occur during open water conditions. As such, recommendations for temporary vehicle and equipment crossings during frozen conditions are not presented. If the anticipated construction schedule changes, these recommendations can be provided.

During open water conditions, clear span bridges are recommended for all of the eight proposed watercourse crossings (Table 9). The installation of clear span bridge vehicle and equipment crossings at Lynx, Brenot and Mackie creeks will require notification to DFO under the applicable OS (i.e., Clear Span Bridges [DFO 2008b]), and adherence must be made to all conditions and mitigative measures outlined in the OS. Since the remaining five watercourses (unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13, the unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19, Portage Creek and the unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68) were found to be nonfish-bearing, the proposed vehicle and equipment crossing methods for these watercourses (i.e., clear span bridge) will not require notification to DFO.

As an alternate to a clear span bridge at the five proposed watercourse crossings that are nonfish-bearing, temporary culverts can also be used and will not require a case-specific review by DFO.

BC MFLNRO also requires notification under Section 9 for any temporary vehicle and equipment watercourse crossings a minimum of 45 days before the start of construction and adherence to the applicable terms and conditions outlined in BC MOE (2010d). If temporary culverts are used BC MFLNRO approval may be required depending on the size of the culvert.

4.4 Recommended Riparian Area Management It is recommended that a reclamation plan be developed for the fish-bearing watercourses in order to mitigate for the riparian impacts from the proposed pipeline crossing methods. For the five remaining nonfish-bearing proposed watercourse crossings, the reclamation measures outlined in Section 5.0 of this report should be implemented.

Riparian management and reducing disturbance within the riparian areas of at the proposed crossings along the proposed pipeline loop are recommended in order to reduce the movement of sediment and avoid contamination of water. Activities that could affect water quality should be appropriately mitigated. Riparian areas that are disturbed should be reclaimed and revegetated. 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 the proposed crossings.

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 Ministry of Forests and Range 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 reduce riparian clearing. When removing vegetation from the RMZ of S2 and S3 streams (i.e., 20 m for

Page 23

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

S2 and S3 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). This applies to Mackie, Lynx and Brenot creeks.

The remaining five watercourses (unnamed tributaries to Mackie Creek at KP 1.01 and KP 1.13, unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek at KP 8.19, Portage Creek and the unnamed tributary to Portage Creek at KP 18.68) are located on S6 stream reaches. For S6 stream reaches, the RMA width is 20 m and consists only of an RMZ. The objectives of the RMZ for S6 streams are to maintain wildlife habitat, streambank and channel stability, and streambank shading. Mitigation measures outlined in the BC MOF Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF 1995) for S6 streams (interior) should be applied in the RMZ during and after construction.

4.5 Recommendations for Non-Classified Drainages There were no drainages that lacked defined bed and banks identified along the proposed pipeline loop at the time of the July 2011 aquatic assessments. Nonfish-bearing drainages including seasonal swales and/or low wet areas may be identified by the surveyors along the proposed pipeline loop. With the successful implementation of appropriate industry standard mitigative measures, an open cut pipeline crossing if water is present and a standard trench method if dry and logfill/swamp mat vehicle and equipment crossing methods can be applied at all nonfish-bearing drainage crossings unless other crossing methods are specified in the Wetland Assessment Report in Appendix 5.0 of the ESA for the Project (TERA 2011).

There are no anticipated regulatory requirements associated with notification or application to DFO Pacific Region (Fisheries Act) for nonfish-bearing drainages. Regulatory requirements may be required for nonfish-bearing drainages by BC MFLNRO (Water Act) if they are identified as wetlands. A list of wetlands is provided in the Wetland Assessment Report in Appendix 5.0 of the ESA for the Project (TERA 2011).

Page 24

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

5.0 MITIGATION The recommendations and mitigative measures for the proposed crossings included in this report were developed in accordance with the construction standards outlined in the guide for Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings, 3rd Edition (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers et al. 2005), the DFO OSs mentioned in Section 4.0 of this report, BC MOF Fish-stream Crossing Guidebook (BC MOF 2002), Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (BC MWLAP 2004b), BC MOF Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF 1995) and Terms and Conditions for changes in and about a stream specified by Habitat Officers, Peace Region (BC MOE 2010d). The guide for Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings includes an endorsement by DFO that 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 fish and fish habitat impacts associated with pipeline-related watercourse crossing activities.

The DFO OSs mentioned in Section 4.0 of this report also contain numerous mitigative measures that should be followed whether or not all conditions in the OS are met and are included in the following subsections. In addition, the following mitigative measures should help ensure that the aquatic capacity of each crossing is not compromised during instream activities. Note that additional mitigation measures may be necessary pending review from various provincial and federal agencies. These measures will be identified in the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for the Project.

5.1 Standard Mitigation The following standard mitigation measures should be implemented at all of the proposed crossings.

• Ensure any disturbance of the right-of-way on the approach to any watercourse crossed by the proposed pipeline loops and associated activities are reduced and immediately stabilized and restored, where feasible, to approximate preconstruction conditions.

• Implement appropriate precautions to prevent deleterious substances (e.g., gasoline, sediment, oil, wet concrete, etc.) from entering watercourses. 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 is to be available at all times.

• Store spoil and waste materials removed from the proposed crossing above the high watermark. Stabilize this material, if warranted, to minimize the potential for runoff events to transport them into the waterbody.

• Clean all equipment entering the Project site prior to arrival. It should also be cleaned after construction to ensure it does not transfer mud, debris, invasive plants or aquatic pests (e.g., Myxobolus cerebralis - the parasite that causes whirling disease in fish).

• Ensure all fisheries workers abide by recommended protocols (e.g., recommended by BC MFLNRO in BC) for disinfecting waders and gear to avoid transporting aquatic invasive species. Construction workers who are anglers will also be notified of the protocols and urged to comply.

• Implement the Adverse Weather Contingency Plan in the EPP in the event of inclement weather.

• Prevent construction materials and debris from entering watercourses.

• Install and maintain appropriate erosion and sediment control methods to prevent sediments from disturbed areas from being transported into watercourses. This should include the management of slopes adjacent to each watercourse.

• Correspondence from regulatory agencies (e.g., DFO) may result in additional conditions and measures on the proposed works that will need to be incorporated into the mitigation program. For example, if DFO provides an LOA, it will likely include conditions that must be implemented for the activities to occur and in order to avoid a HADD.

Page 25

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

• Review all mitigation and regulatory requirements during the pre-job meeting involving the appropriate personnel (i.e., contractor, Environmental Inspector, Westcoast representative, fish salvage and water quality monitoring crews and/or subcontractors) to ensure that all mitigation requirements are understood and can be implemented.

5.2 Mitigation for Trenched Pipeline Crossing Methods In addition to the standard mitigation measures, the following mitigative measures should be implemented where isolated trenched crossings are constructed.

• Align the loop, where feasible, such that watercourses are only crossed at straight sections perpendicular to the bank. Avoid crossings at meanders or bends of watercourses, where feasible.

• Where fish habitat occurs, a water quality monitoring plan should be developed with input from a qualified fish biologist to monitor turbidity and/or total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations during installation and removal of the isolation dams. TSS concentrations 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 and/or flow volumes are low at the time of construction, the water quality monitoring plan may only require visual monitoring.

• Ensure that isolation methods at fish-bearing waterbodies will not require more than three consecutive days to complete, unless a qualified fish biologist is consulted to ensure upstream and downstream fish migration is accommodated.

• Removal of beaver dams will require a Wildlife Act Permit from the BC MFLNRO and submission of a notification under Section 9 of the Water Act.

• Construct fish-bearing crossings during window of least risk for proposed crossings.

• Do not construct earth berms as isolation structures.

• Ensure maintenance of downstream flow (in terms of quantity and quality) at all times when constructing an isolated crossing. 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 continuously monitored to ensure downstream flow is maintained at all times until the dam materials are removed and normal flows restored to the channel.

• Ensure that isolation bypass water maintains downstream flow and does 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.

• Ensure pump intakes do 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 intakes in a metal cage with a mesh size of less than 2.54 mm.

• Conduct a fish salvage led by a QEP at the proposed crossings that are fish-bearing if an isolated method is employed. A Scientific Fish Collection Permit from BC MFLNRO will be required for fish salvage activities and should be applied for at least 15 working days in advance so it is received prior to isolation.

• Place only native material removed from the trench in the trenched area or clean coarse material (gravel or rock) 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 from below the high water level of any watercourse.

Page 26

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

• Return the bed and banks of each crossing as close as possible to their preconstruction contours. Crossings should not be realigned or straightened in any way nor have their hydraulic characteristics changed.

• Refer to the reclamation plan developed for Mackie, Lynx and Brenot creeks.

• Replace salvaged strippings to facilitate revegetation of the banks where the banks are disturbed by construction activities at crossings that do not have a reclamation plan. Disturbed banks and riparian areas should be seeded with a native grass mixture. The Environmental Inspector should determine onsite whether other restoration methods should also be applied to stabilize the banks (e.g., soil wraps, brush layers, willow plantings and matting) in a manner that approximates preconstruction conditions, where appropriate.

5.3 Mitigation for Dry Open Cut Pipeline Crossing Methods In addition to the standard mitigation measures, the following mitigative measures should be implemented if open cut crossings are used at the proposed crossings that are dry at the time of construction.

• Align the loop, where feasible, such that watercourses are only crossed at straight sections perpendicular to the bank. Avoid crossings at meanders or bends of watercourses, where feasible.

• Store spoil and waste materials removed from the proposed crossing above the high watermark. Stabilize this material, if warranted, to reduce the potential for runoff events to transport them into the waterbody.

• Place only native material removed from the trench in the trenched area or clean coarse material (gravel or rock) 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 high water level of any watercourse.

• Return the bed and banks of each proposed crossing as close as possible to their preconstruction contours. Crossings should not be realigned or straightened in any way nor have their hydraulic characteristics changed.

• Refer to the reclamation plan developed for Mackie, Lynx and Brenot creeks.

5.4 Mitigation for Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods In addition to the standard mitigation measures, the following mitigative measures should be implemented for the temporary vehicle and equipment crossings that are installed.

• Construct or install temporary vehicle access across waterbodies, shorelines, riverbanks and wetlands in a manner that follows provincial and federal guidelines.

• Install and remove any temporary vehicle crossings in a manner that protects the banks from erosion and maintains flow in the waterbody. These crossings will be returned to their preconstruction condition.

Page 27

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

• Vehicles will need to stay out of the RRZ, or at least 15 m from the high watermark, unless using a temporary vehicle crossing or on the crossing approaches within the right-of-way and approved workspace.

• Install temporary clear span bridges perpendicular to the watercourse. They should be designed to meet provincial requirements related to flood frequency levels unless recommended otherwise by a river engineer.

• Stabilize and restore banks and areas disturbed for approaches to preconstruction conditions. No excavation of the streambed is to occur.

• Refer to the reclamation plan developed for Mackie, Lynx and Brenot creeks.

• Stabilize and restore banks, and areas disturbed for approaches, to preconstruction conditions. No excavation of the streambed will be allowed to occur.

5.4.1 Mitigation for Temporary Culvert Crossings In addition to the standard mitigation measures, the following mitigative measures are to be followed at any temporary culvert crossings that are installed.

• Install temporary culvert crossings only at nonfish-bearing waterbodies.

• Design culverts to ensure that they do not alter the natural hydraulic regime of the waterbody. Culverts should also be designed to ensure they do not create pooling at, or immediately downstream from, the crossing, and so that the waterbody is not constricted relative to the natural channel.

• Use structures that span the stream bankfull width. Closed bottom culverts are to be embedded into the streambed so the culvert bottom is covered with natural substrate (see BC MOF [2002], BC MWLAP [2004b] and Alberta Transportation [2001] for recommended depths).

• Isolation of the watercourse crossing will be required if flow is present at the time of culvert installation and disturbance of the bed or banks is required. If isolation is required, the mitigative measures outlined in Section 5.2 are to be implemented.

5.5 Mitigation for Riparian Area Management In addition to the standard mitigation measures, the following mitigative measures should be followed in riparian areas. These following mitigative measures were developed from 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).

• Limit the physical disturbance to the streambank during construction activities (e.g., limit infilling [filling scour pools, rock armouring placement], excavation of the channel within or upstream or downstream of the right-of-way, etc.).

• Design S2 and S3 stream crossings to reduce clearing of vegetation in the RMZ to prevent disruption to normal drainage patterns, and to maintain fish habitat and streambank integrity.

• Fell trees away from watercourses. When altering a tree that is located on the bank of a waterbody, where practical, ensure that the root structure and stability are maintained to help bind the soil and

Page 28

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

encourage rapid colonization of low-growing plant species. In addition, ensure no debris remains within the high watermark or is placed into a stream.

• Alter riparian vegetation in the constructed right-of-way by hand, where practical. 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, where practical. If machinery must be used, operate machinery on land (above the high watermark) and in a manner that reduces disturbance to the banks of the watercourse. In addition, reduce disturbance to all low-growing shrubs or grass species.

• Vegetate any disturbed areas by planting and seeding with native trees, shrubs, forbs or grasses and cover such areas with mulch to prevent erosion and to help seeds germinate. If required to vegetate the following spring, exposed areas should be covered and stabilized with erosion control blankets to keep the soil in place and prevent erosion.

• Ensure that proposed crossings are inspected during the post-construction monitoring program to assess slope and bank integrity and potential for streambank erosion. If any problems are observed, a QEP should immediately assess the situation.

5.6 Mitigation for Navigable Watercourses 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 29

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

6.0 SUMMARY/CLOSING This aquatic assessment was completed in order to document baseline fish and fish habitat information at each proposed crossing, provide DFO with information to assist with any case-specific reviews of the Project they may need to conduct, and to satisfy the requirements of the BC Water Act.

Original Signed

Sara Bumstead, B.Sc., P. Biol. Fish Biologist

Reviewed by:

Original Signed

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

Page 30

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 Literature Cited Alberta Environment. 1996. Northern River Basins Study Final Report. Website: http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/water/nrbs/index.html. Accessed: July 2011.

Alberta Environment. 2000a. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body. Includes Amendments to February 2007. 26 pp.

Alberta Environment. 2000b. Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Includes Amendments to February 2007. 26 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2009. Status of the Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Alberta: Update 2009. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 39 (Update 2009). Edmonton, Alberta. 48 pp.

Alberta Transportation. 2001. Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines & Procedures for Watercourse Crossings in Alberta. Revised August 2009. Website: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/ docType245/Production/Complete_Fish_Habitiat_Manual.pdf.

AMEC Earth & Environmental and LGL Limited. 2008a. Peace River Fisheries Investigation ‐ Peace River Tributary Spring Spawning Migration, Tributary Summer Juvenile Rearing and Radio Telemetry Studies 2006. Prepared for BC Hydro.

AMEC Earth & Environmental and LGL Limited. 2008b. Peace River Fish and Aquatics Investigations ‐ Peace River and Tributary Summer Fish Distribution, Habitat Assessment and Radio Telemetry Studies. Prepared for BC Hydro. 93 p.+ Appendices.

Aquatic Resources Ltd. 1998. Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of Farrell and Lynx Creek Headwaters and Associated Streams in the Dunlevy Landscape Unit. Prepared for Canadian Forest Products. Chetwynd, BC. 181 p. + Appendices.

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

Berry, D.K. 1994. Alberta's Bull Trout Management and Recovery Plan. Alberta Environmental Protection. Fish and Wildlife Services. Publication No. T/289. Edmonton.

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. Pages 62-73 in Armantrout, New Brunswick (ed.). Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Information. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Brewin, M.K., A. J Paul and M. Monita (editors). 2001. Ecology and Management of Northwest Salmonids, Bull Trout II Conference Proceedings. c/o Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta.

Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brewin. 1997. Distribution Maps for Bull Trout in Alberta. Pages 209-216 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, eds. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2011. British Columbia Species and Ecosystems Explorer. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Victoria, British Columbia. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/. Accessed: July 2011.

British Columbia Hydro. 2010. Peace Canyon Dam History and Hydroelectric Operation. Website: http://www.bchydro.com/community/recreation_areas/peace_canyon_dam_visitor_centre.html. Accessed: July 2011.

Page 31

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2001. Fisheries Information Services Branch. Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Standards and Procedures. Prepared for the Resource Inventory Committee. Website: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/aquatic/recon/assets/recce2c.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2008. 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. Updated 2009. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/cabinet/working_around_water.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010a. Fisheries Inventory. 1:50,000 British Columbia Watershed Atlas Maps. British Columbia Watershed Groups - Key Groups. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/watershed_atlas_maps/maps/index.html. Accessed: July 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010b. 2010-2011 Freshwater Fishing Regulations Synopsis. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Victoria, British Columbia. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/synopsis/. Accessed: July 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010c. Endangered Species and Ecosystems. 2009/2010 Changes. Animal 2010 List Changes. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/changes.htm. Accessed: July 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010d. Terms and Conditions for Changes in and About a Stream Specified by Ministry of Environment Habitat Officers, Peace Region, Version 1.2.

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

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2011a. Fisheries Inventory Data Queries Tool. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/fidq/index.html. Accessed: July 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2011b. Habitat Wizard. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habwiz/. Accessed: August 2011.

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

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1998. Fish Stream Identification Guidebook Version 2.1. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/FPC/FPCGUIDE/FISH/FishStream.pdf.

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

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002. Environmental Indicator: Fish in British Columbia. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/et02/15_fish/technical_report/Fish_2002.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004a. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife - Accounts V. 2004. British Columbia Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection. Victoria, British Columbia. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/accounts.html.

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

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association. 2005. Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings. Prepared by TERA

Page 32

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Environmental Consultants and Salmo Consulting Inc., Calgary Alberta for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers , Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2007. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Summary Table. Update 7.1. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Website: http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association. 2005. Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants and Salmo Consulting Inc. Calgary, Alberta.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2011a. The COSEWIC Candidate List. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/index_e.cfm. Accessed: July 2011.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2011b. The COSEWIC Prioritized Candidate Species List. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm#4. Accessed: July 2011.

Diversified Environmental Services. 1995. Westcoast Energy Inc Farrell, Mackie and Brenot creeks Pipeline Maintenance Fisheries Habitat Assessment July 1995. Prepared for Westcoast Energy Inc. Fort St. John.

Environment Canada. 2011. Water Survey of Canada: HYDAT Archived Hydrometric Data (Station No. 07EF001 and 07FB008). Environment Canada. Website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/hydat/H2O/index_e.cfm. Accessed: June 2011.

Feinstein, A. 2010. British Columbia's Peace River Valley and Climate Change- The role of the valley's forest and agricultural land in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Chillborne Environmental. Website: http://itsourvalley.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/the-peace-river-valley- and-climate-change.pdf. Accessed: July 2011.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008a. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Operational Statement Dry Open-cut Stream Crossings. Version 1.0. Published by Fisheries and Oceans Pacific Region Head Office. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008b. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Operational Statement Clear Span Bridges. Version 3.0. Website: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/os- eo/cs-bridge-ponts-pl-eng.htm.

Langston, A. R., and E. B. Murphy. 2008. The History of Fish Introductions (to 2005) in the Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Area. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program.

Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita. 1997. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta.

Mainstream Aquatics Ltd. 2009. Site C fisheries studies – Juvenile fish use and habitat inventory of Peace River tributaries in summer 2008. Prepared for BC Hydro. Report No. 08008CF: 78 p. + Appendices.

Martin, M., K. Everett and K. Zimmerman (compilers). 2004. Species Summaries and Procedure for Managing Priority Wildlife in the Omineca Region. FORREX-Forest Research Extension Partnership. Kamloops, British Columbia. FORREX Series 16. Website: http://www.forrex.org/publications/forrexseries/fs16.pdf.

McPhail, J.D. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. The University of Alberta Press and University of Calgary Press. 2nd Edition.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series No. 6. Research Branch and Forest Sciences Section of the British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Victoria.

Page 33

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Nelson, J.S. and M.J. Paetz. 1992. The Fishes of Alberta. University of Alberta Press and University of Calgary Press. 2nd Edition. Edmonton, Alberta.

Pattenden, R. and G. Ash. 1993. Fisheries enhancement options for Dinosaur Lake, A Review. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Report No. 72. 38 pp plus appendices.

Pollard, S.M. and T. Down. 2001. Bull Trout in British Columbia – A Provincial Perspective on Status Management and Protection. Pages 207 - 214 in Brewin, M.K., A. J. Paul and M. Monita (editors). Ecology and Management of Northwest Salmonids, Bull Trout II Conference Proceedings. c/o Trout Unlimited Canada. Calgary, Alberta.

Post, J.R. and F.D. Johnston. 2002. Status of the Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 39. Edmonton. Alberta. 40 pp. Website: http://srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/DetailedStatus/documents/btrout.pdf.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 966 pp.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2011. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment for the Proposed Westcoast Energy Inc T-North 2012 Expansion Project. Prepared for Westcoast Energy Inc doing business as Spectra Energy Transmission. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2010. Moberly River Pipeline Replacement Project. N5L1 KP 50.8 Environmental Assessment. Prepared for: Westcoast Energy Inc. doing business as Spectra Energy Transmission. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2011a. Peace Project Water Use Plan, Dinosaur Reservoir Demonstration Tributary, GMSWORKS #8, Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Portage and Bullrun Creek Diversions, Study Period: July 2010 to March 2011. Prepared for BC Hydro.

Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2011b. Peace Project Water Use Plan, Dinosaur Reservoir Tributary Habitat, GMSMON – 14, Effectiveness Monitoring for the Portage and Bullrun Creek, Diversions: Year 1 – Baseline Conditions, Study Period: July 2010 to January 2011. Prepared for BC Hydro.

Page 34

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

APPENDIX A

WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE RECORDS

Page A-1

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Mackie Creek (WC 1) Stream Class: S6 Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 340 m (5) Survey Date: July 13, 2011 Window of Least Risk: Open Legal Location: C-057-I/094-B-01 Field Crew: G. Todd, E. Schneuker UTM (Zone 10): 556617E, 6230105N KP (as of September 2011): 1.01

CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS Channel Pattern Irregular Beaver Dams None Confinement Confined Native Channel Width (m) n/a Flow Regime Perennial BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 2.70, 1.70-3.23 Bank Shape Vertical Undercut Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 2.12, 1.62-2.50 Bank Texture Fines Fines Depth (m): Mean, Range 0.14, 0.04-0.25 Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 1.10, 0.50-1.50 1.04, 0.40-1.60

0.10 Discharge (m³/s) Grade of Approach Slopes (%) <4 4-14 Plate 1 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Plate 2 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Stream Gradient (%) 2-3 Riparian Area Width (m) 5-10 10-20 upstream. downstream. Embeddedness Low Riparian Vegetation Types Shrubs Shrubs

SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT Organics 0 Pool 1 (depth >1.0 m) 0 0 Stream Shading 41-70% Fines (<2 mm) 26 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Boulders None Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 35 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 43 13 Undercut Banks Subdominant Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 23 Run 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation Trace Cobble (66-250 mm) 16 Run 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Woody Debris Dominant Boulder (>250 mm) 0 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 93 27 Depth None Flat 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Stain/Turbulence Turbid WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation None Water Temperature (oC) 10.0 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Surface Turbulence Trace pH 7.8 Riffle 194 57 Culvert Trace Plate 3 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of right bank. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 12.7 Impoundment 0 0 Other None Conductivity (µS/cm) 105.7 No defined channel 0 0 Other None Turbidity (visual) Turbid Cascade 12 3 TOTAL COVER Moderate Risk to Crossing DFO Regulatory Fish/Fish Method Process Habitat Species Spawning Rating Rearing Rating Overwintering Rating Migration Rating Recommended Pipeline Crossing Arctic grayling Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal Isolate if water n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- bearing bull trout Poor Poor Unsuitable Marginal present/open cut if dry longnose sucker Marginal Marginal Unsuitable Marginal Recommended Vehicle Crossing in Open Water Conditions lake chub Poor to Marginal Poor Unsuitable Marginal Clear span n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- bridge or culvert bearing

FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length FISH SAMPLING EFFORT none captured or observed 0 0 n/a Date Sampled July 13, 2011 Sept. 14, 2011 Map illustrating crossing location and watercourse Fish previously documented at approximately 5 km downstream in Mackie Technique BPEF/ MT BPEF Creek were rainbow trout (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Distance (m)/No. of traps 462 m/4 traps 100 m Effort (seconds/hours) 452 s/83 hrs 270 s T-North 2012 Expansion Project No. Captured 0 0 CPUE 0 0

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS High flows were present at the time of the survey due to heavy rainfall events. Unstable, undercut banks were within proposed right-of-way. Potential seasonal low flow barriers to fish. Drop structure (i.e. failing culvert) observed within the existing right-of-way (0.30 m drop), and woody debris dominant throughout channel. Notes: BPEF - backpack electrofishing, MT - minnow trapping, CPUE for BPEF is fish/100 seconds of effort, CPUE for MT is fish/1hr of effort See Figure 2 for legend Page A-2

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Mackie Creek (WC 2) Stream Class: S6 Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 199 m (5) Survey Date: July 13, 2011 Window of Least Risk: Open Legal Location: C-057-I/094-B-01 Field Crew: G. Todd, J. Denroche, E. Fulcher and E. Schneuker UTM (Zone 10): 556626E, 6230007N KP (as of September 2011): 1.13

CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS Channel Pattern Straight Beaver Dams None Confinement Not Applicable Native Channel Width (m) n/a Flow Regime Intermittent BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 0.82, 0.52-1.10 Bank Shape Vertical Vertical Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 0.70, 0.50-0.85 Bank Texture Fines Fines 0.13, 0.07-0.20 Depth (m): Mean, Range Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 0.45, 0.27-0.95 0.43, 0.24-0.82 Discharge (m³/s) Negligible (<0.01) Grade of Approach Slopes (%) 4-14 4-14 Plate 1 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Plate 2 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Stream Gradient (%) 5 Riparian Area Width (m) <5 5-10 upstream. downstream. Embeddedness n/a Riparian Vegetation Types Mixed Mixed

SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT Organics 0 Pool 1 (depth >1.0 m) 0 0 Stream Shading 71-90% Fines (<2 mm) 88 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Boulders None Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 0 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks Trace Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 0 Run 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation Subdominant Cobble (66-250 mm) 12 Run 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Woody Debris Dominant Boulder (>250 mm) 0 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 141 70 Depth None Flat 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Stain/Turbulence Trace WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation None Water Temperature (oC) 12.8 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 9 5 Other None Plate 3 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of right bank. pH 8.27 Riffle 10 5 Other None Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 10.5 Impoundment 0 0 Other None Conductivity (µS/cm) 116.0 No defined channel 27 14 Other None

Turbidity (visual) Turbid Cascade 12 6 TOTAL COVER Moderate Risk to Crossing DFO Regulatory Fish/Fish Method Process Habitat FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL Recommended Pipeline Crossing Species Spawning Rating Rearing Rating Wintering Rating Migration Rating Isolate if water n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- present/open cut bearing All Species that may occur Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable if dry Recommended Vehicle Crossing in Open Water Conditions Clear span n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length FISH SAMPLING EFFORT bridge or culvert bearing

none captured or observed 0 0 n/a Date Sampled July 13, 2011 Sept. 14, 2011 Rainbow trout captured approximately 5 km downstream in Mackie Creek Technique BPEF BPEF (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Distance (m) 100 100 Map illustrating crossing location and watercourse Effort (seconds) 111 300 No. Captured 0 0 CPUE 0 0 T-North 2012 Expansion Project

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Small first order watercourse with high flows at time of survey due to heavy rainfall events. Suspect site to be dry or frozen to bed during late fall and winter. Notes: BPEF - backpack electrofishing, CPUE for BPEF is fish/100 seconds of effort

See Figure 2 for legend Page A-3

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Watercourse (Site#): Mackie Creek (WC 3) Stream Class: S2 Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 210 m (5) Survey Date: September 14, 2011 Window of Least Risk: July 15 to March 31 Legal Location: A-037-I/094-B-01 Field Crew: J. Denroche, E. Fulcher UTM (Zone 10): 556925E, 6227834N KP (as of September 2011): 3.32

CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS Channel Pattern Irregular Meandering Beaver Dams Breached dams (3) within reach Confinement Occasionally Confined Native Channel Width (m) n/a Flow Regime Perennial BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 5.12; 4.60-6.00 Bank Shape Vertical Sloping Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 3.66, 2.40-4.50 Bank Texture Fines Fines Depth (m): Mean, Range 0.44, 0.10-1.08 Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 1.42, 1.10-1.80 1.68, 1.10-2.30

<0.01 Discharge (m³/s) Grade of Approach Slopes (%) <4 <4 Plate 1 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Plate 2 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Stream Gradient (%) 2 Riparian Area Width (m) 30-40 m 5-10 m upstream. downstream. Embeddedness n/a Riparian Vegetation Types Grass Grass

SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT Organics 0 Pool 1 (depth >1.0 m) 32 15 Stream Shading 0 % Fines (<2 mm) 91 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.0 m) 64 30 Boulders None Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 3 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks None Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 6 Run 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation None Cobble (66-250 mm) 0 Run 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 56 27 Woody Debris Subdominant Boulder (>250 mm) 0 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 58 28 Depth Dominant Flat 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Stain/Turbulence Trace WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation None Water Temperature (oC) 9.0 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Surface Turbulence None pH 8.2 Riffle 0 0 Other None Plate 3 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of right bank. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 7.30 Impoundment 0 0 Other None Conductivity (µS/cm) 341 No defined channel 0 0 Other None Turbidity (visual) Turbid Other n/a n/a TOTAL COVER Moderate Risk to Crossing DFO Regulatory Fish/Fish Method Process Habitat FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL Recommended Pipeline Crossing Species Spawning Rating Rearing Rating Wintering Rating Migration Rating Isolate if water Case-specific review if Low/Covered under OS All fish species that may occur Poor Poor Poor Optimal present/open cut water present/Notification if dry if dry Recommended Vehicle Crossing in Open Water Conditions FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length FISH SAMPLING EFFORT Clear span Notification Covered bridge under OS Rainbow trout 4 5 143-200 mm Date Sampled July 14, 2011 Sept. 14, 2011 Rainbow trout were previously caught at the crossing location (DES 1995) and Technique BPEF/MT BPEF 3 km from right-of-way (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Distance (m)/No. of traps 100 m/4 traps 100 m Map illustrating crossing location and watercourse Effort (seconds/hours) 387 s/9 hrs 402 s No. Captured 0 4 CPUE 0 1.00 T-North 2012 Expansion Project

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Site has unstable banks. Evidence of historic beaver activity within site (breached dams approximately 65 m and 120 m downstream and evidence of current beaver activity at approximately 125 m downstream of proposed right-of-way). Several dry seeps that feed the creek throughout site during high rain/flow events. Exposed pipe (approximately 5 m downstream) and a failed logfill (approximately 25 m downstream) was observed.

Notes: BPEF - backpack electrofishing, MT - minnow trapping, CPUE for BPEF is fish/100 seconds of effort, CPUE for MT is fish/1hr of effort

See Figure 2 for legend Page A-4

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Watercourse (Site#): Lynx Creek (WC 4) Stream Class: S2 Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 500 m (8) Survey Date: September 16, 2011 Window of Least Risk: July 15 to March 31 Legal Location: D-086-H/094-B-01 Field Crew: J. Denroche, E. Fulcher UTM (Zone 10): 557948E, 6223832N KP (as of September 2011): 7.52

CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS Channel Pattern Meandering Beaver Dams Present throughout reach Confinement Frequently Confined Native Channel Width (m) n/a Flow Regime Perennial BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 11.13, 5.00-19.00 Bank Shape Sloping Vertical Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 6.88, 1.8-15.0 Bank Texture Fines Fines Depth (m): Mean, Range 0.30,0.03-1.0 Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 1.49, 0.80-3.20 1.50, 0.80-2.50

<0.01 Discharge (m³/s) Grade of Approach Slopes (%) 4-14 <4 Plate 1 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Plate 2 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Stream Gradient (%) 1-3% Riparian Area Width (m) 30-40 5-10 upstream. downstream. Embeddedness Moderate Riparian Vegetation Types Grass-Shrub Mixed trees

SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT Organics 0 Pool 1 (depth >1.0 m) 10 1.50 Stream Shading 0% Fines (<2 mm) 34 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.0 m) 173 25.5 Boulders None Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 30 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks Trace Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 26 Run 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation Subdominant Cobble (66-250 mm) 8 Run 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 46 7.0 Woody Debris Subdominant Boulder (>250 mm) 2 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 385 57.0 Depth Dominant Flat 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Stain/Turbulence Trace WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation None Water Temperature (oC) 10.4 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other None pH 8.18 Riffle 62 9.0 Other None Plate 3 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of right bank. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.3 Impoundment 0 0 Other None Conductivity (µS/cm) 372 No defined channel 0 0 Other None Turbidity (visual) Turbid Other n/a n/a TOTAL COVER Moderate Risk to Crossing DFO Regulatory Fish/Fish Method Process Habitat Species Spawning Rating Rearing Rating Overwintering Rating Migration Rating Recommended Pipeline Crossing Isolate if water Case-specific review if Low/Covered Arctic grayling Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal present/open cut water present/Notification under OS bull trout Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal if dry if dry Recommended Vehicle Crossing in Open Water Conditions longnose sucker Suboptimal Marginal to Suboptimal Marginal Marginal Clear span Notification Covered lake chub Suboptimal Suboptimal Suboptimal Marginal bridge under OS

FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length (mm) FISH SAMPLING EFFORT

Rainbow trout 3 2 113-184 Date Sampled July 15, 2011 Map illustrating crossing location and watercourse Rainbow trout were caught in Mackie Creek (2.5 km from right-of-way) and Carey Technique BPEF Creek (300 m from right-of-way) (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Distance (m)/No. of traps 200 m Effort (seconds/hours) 555 s T-North 2012 Expansion Project No. Captured 3 CPUE 0.54

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Series of recent beaver activity (beaver dams located at ~8 m upstream, at center line, and 65 m, 80 m and 160 m downstream). Evidence of extremely high water during the spring (debris jams, flood sign at 1 m above ordinary high water mark). Unstable banks observed throughout reach; bank stability measures may be required pending final crossing location. Large woody debris present throughout reach. Notes: BPEF - backpack electrofishing, CPUE for BPEF is fish/100 seconds of effort See Figure 2 for legend Page A-5

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Lynx Creek (WC 5) Stream Class: S6 Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 200 m (5) Survey Date: July 15, 2011 Window of Least Risk: Open Legal Location: A-086-H/094-B-01 Field Crew: J. Denroche, E. Fulcher UTM (Zone 10): 557897E, 6223201N KP (as of September 2011): 8.19

CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS Channel Pattern Straight Beaver Dams None Confinement Frequently confined Native Channel Width (m) n/a Flow Regime Intermittent BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 0.40, 0.70-3.20 Bank Shape Sloping Sloping Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 1.20, 0.40-3.60 Bank Texture Fines Fines 0.10, 0.00-0.10 Depth (m): Mean, Range Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 0.50, 0.30-0.90 0.50, 0.30-0.90 Discharge (m³/s) Negligible Grade of Approach Slopes (%) 4-14 4-14 Plate 1 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Plate 2 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Stream Gradient (%) 1 Riparian Area Width (m) 5-10 5-10 upstream. downstream. Embeddedness n/a Riparian Vegetation Types Grass Grass

SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT Organics 36 Pool 1 (depth >1.0 m) 0 0 Stream Shading 71-90% Fines (<2 mm) 64 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Boulders None Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 0 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks None Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 0 Run 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation Trace Cobble (66-250 mm) 0 Run 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Woody Debris Subdominant Boulder (>250 mm) 0 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Depth None Flat 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Stain/Turbulence Clear WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation Dominant Water Temperature (oC) 13.4 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 170 85 Other None Plate 3 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of right bank. pH 8.83 Riffle 0 0 Other None Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 3.30 Impoundment 15 7.5 Other None Conductivity (µS/cm) 381.0 No defined channel 0 0 Other None

Turbidity (visual) Clear Bridge impoundment 15 7.5 TOTAL COVER Moderate Risk to Crossing DFO Regulatory Fish/Fish Method Process Habitat Species Spawning Rating Rearing Rating Overwintering Rating Migration Rating Recommended Pipeline Crossing All fish species that may occur Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Nil Isolate if water n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- present/open cut bearing if dry FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length (mm) FISH SAMPLING EFFORT Recommended Vehicle Crossing in Open Water Conditions Clear span n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- none captured or observed 0 0 n/a Date Sampled July 15, 2011 bridge or culvert bearing

Rainbow trout were caught within the right-of-way (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Technique BPEF Distance (m)/No. of traps 100 m Effort (seconds/hours) 215 s Map illustrating crossing location and watercourse No. Captured 0 CPUE 0 T-North 2012 Expansion Project ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Existing crossing present. Small first order tributary with marginally defined channel; impounded at approximately 120 m downstream by man-made vehicle crossing (i.e., channel filled in). Notes: BPEF - backpack electrofishing, CPUE for BPEF is fish/100 seconds of effort

See Figure 2 for legend Page A-6

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Watercourse (Site#): Brenot Creek (WC 6) Stream Class: S3 Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 270 m (5) Survey Date: July 15, 2011 Window of Least Risk: July 15 to March 31 Legal Location: A-36-H/094-B-01 Field Crew: G. Todd, and E. Schneuker UTM (Zone 10): 558171E, 6218632N KP (as of September 2011): 12.78

CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS Channel Pattern Irregular Beaver Dams None Confinement Occasionally confined Native Channel Width (m) n/a Flow Regime Perennial BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 4.10, 1.60-7.40 Bank Shape Sloping Sloping Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 4.30, 3.50-5.90 Bank Texture Anthropogenic Anthropogenic Depth (m): Mean, Range 0.60, 0.25-1.00 Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 1.10, 0.60-1.80 0.90, 0.60-1.30

0.31 Discharge (m³/s) Grade of Approach Slopes (%) <14% 4-14% Plate 1 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Plate 2 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Stream Gradient (%) 2-3.5 Riparian Area Width (m) 10-20 5-10 upstream. downstream. Embeddedness Low Riparian Vegetation Types Shrub Shrub

SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT Organics 0 Pool 1 (depth >1.0 m) 17 6 Stream Shading 0% Fines (<2 mm) 44 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.0 m) 105 38 Boulders Subdominant Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 19 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks None Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 11 Run 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation None Cobble (66-250 mm) 16 Run 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 57 21 Woody Debris Dominant Boulder (>250 mm) 4 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 23 8 Depth None Flat 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Stain/Turbulence Trace WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 17 6 Instream Vegetation Trace Water Temperature (oC) 15.0 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other None pH 7.48 Riffle 36 13 Other None Plate 3 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of right bank. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.20 Impoundment 0 0 Other None Conductivity (µS/cm) 345.0 No defined channel 0 0 Other None Turbidity (visual) turbid Rapid 21 8 TOTAL COVER Moderate Risk to Crossing DFO Regulatory Fish/Fish Method Process Habitat Species Spawning Rating Rearing Rating Overwintering Rating Migration Rating Recommended Pipeline Crossing Arctic grayling Poor Marginal Poor Optimal Isolate if water Case-specific review if Low/Covered under OS bull trout Poor Marginal Poor Optimal present/open cut water present/Notification if dry if dry mountain whitefish Poor Marginal Poor Optimal Recommended Vehicle Crossing in Open Water Conditions longnose sucker Marginal Suboptimal Poor Optimal Clear span Notification Covered bridge under OS lake chub Suboptimal Optimal Optimal Optimal

FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length (mm) FISH SAMPLING EFFORT Map illustrating crossing location and watercourse Lake chub 12 6 51-72 Date Sampled July 15, 2011 Longnose sucker, Lake chub found at right-of-way and Rainbow trout and slimy Technique BFEF sculpin found 2 km upstream from right-of-way (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Distance (m)/No. of traps 120 m T-North 2012 Expansion Project Effort (seconds/hours) 486 s No. Captured 12 CPUE 2.47

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Flooded terrestrial grasses account for the majority of instream vegetation providing cover. Breached beaver dam and/or debris jam observed. Notes: BPEF - backpack electrofishing, CPUE for BPEF is fish/100 seconds of effort

See Figure 2 for legend Page A-7

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Watercourse (Site#): Portage Creek (WC 7) Watercourse Class: S6 Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 200 m (5) Survey Date: July 16, 2011 Window of Least Risk: Open Legal Location: C-057-A/094-B-01 Field Crew: G. Todd, E. Fulcher UTM (Zone 10): 558448E, 6213452N KP (as of September 2011): 17.96

CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS Channel Pattern Sinuous Beaver Dams None Confinement Confined Native Channel Width (m) n/a Flow Regime Intermittent BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 1.40, 0.90-1.70 Bank Shape Sloping Sloping Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 4.45, 1.60-11.90 Bank Texture Fines Fines Depth (m): Mean, Range 0.50, 0.20-1.20 Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 0.30, 0.20-0.50 0.35, 0.20-0.60

0.16 Discharge (m³/s) Grade of Approach Slopes (%) 4-14 4-14 Plate 1 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Plate 2 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Stream Gradient (%) 0.5 Riparian Area Width (m) 5-10 >5 upstream. downstream. Embeddedness n/a Riparian Vegetation Types Shrubs Shrubs

SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT Organics 0 Pool 1 (depth >1.0 m) 0 0 Stream Shading 21-40% Fines (<2 mm) 100 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Boulders None Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 0 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks None Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 0 Run 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation Trace Cobble (66-250 mm) 0 Run 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Woody Debris Subdominant Boulder (>250 mm) 0 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 122 55 Depth None Flat 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Stain/Turbulence None WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation Dominant o Water Temperature ( C) 14.0 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 38 17 Other None pH 7.80 Riffle 0 0 Other None Plate 3 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of right bank. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 7.70 Impoundment 60 28 Other None Conductivity (µS/cm) 356.0 Other 0 0 Other None Turbidity (visual) Clear Other 0 0 TOTAL COVER Abundant Risk to Crossing DFO Regulatory Fish/Fish Species Spawning Rating Rearing Rating Overwintering Rating Migration Rating Method Process Habitat Arctic grayling Unsuitable Poor Poor Suboptimal Recommended Pipeline Crossing Bull trout Unsuitable Poor Poor Suboptimal Isolate if flowing/ n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- open cut if dry bearing Longnose sucker Unsuitable Marginal Poor Suboptimal Recommended Vehicle Crossing in Open Water Conditions Lake chub Poor Optimal Suboptimal Suboptimal Clear span n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- bridge or culvert bearing

FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length FISH SAMPLING EFFORT none captured or observed 0 0 n/a Date Sampled July 16, 2011 Sept. 15, 2011 No fish were previously documented; rainbow trout have been caught Technique BPEF Dry Map illustrating crossing location and watercourse approximately 13 km in the Peace River (BC MFLNRO 2011a,b). Distance(m)/No. of traps 75 m Dry Effort (seconds/hours) 289 s Dry No. Captured 0 Dry T-North 2012 Expansion Project CPUE 0 Dry

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS High flows at time of assessment; instream vegetation cover is provided flooded terrestrial grasses. Pasture and man-made impoundment located downstream. Notes: BPEF - backpack electrofishing, CPUE for BPEF is fish/100 seconds of effort

See Figure 2 for legend Page A-8

Westcoast Energy Inc. Technical Field Report: 2011 Aquatic Assessment T-North 2012 Expansion Project November 2011 / 7261

Watercourse (Site#): Unnamed tributary to Portage Creek (WC 8) Stream Class: S6 Habitat Survey Length (# transects): 200 m (5) Survey Date: July 16, 2011 Window of Least Risk: Open Legal Location: C-065-A/094-B-01 Field Crew: J. Denroche, E. Schneuker UTM (Zone 10): 558491E, 6212709N KP (as of September 2011): 18.68

CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS CHANNEL AND FLOW CONDITIONS Channel Pattern Straight Beaver Dams Suspected Confinement Frequently confined Native Channel Width (m) n/a Flow Regime Perennial BANK CONDITIONS LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Bankfull Width (m): Mean, Range 1.90, 1.70-2.20 Bank Shape Sloping Sloping Wetted Width (m): Mean, Range 3.00, 2.50-3.60 Bank Texture Fines Fines Depth (m): Mean, Range 0.50, 0.20-1.00 Bank Height (m): Mean, Range 0.86, 0.50-1.10 0.92, 0.50-1.30

0.20 Discharge (m³/s) Grade of Approach Slopes (%) 4-14% 4-14% Plate 1 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Plate 2 Photograph taken at proposed crossing looking Stream Gradient (%) 2 Riparian Area Width (m) <5 <5 upstream. downstream. Embeddedness n/a Riparian Vegetation Types Shrub Shrub

SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION % HABITAT Length (m) % COVER TYPES AMOUNT Organics 70 Pool 1 (depth >1.0 m) 0 0 Stream Shading 41-70% Fines (<2 mm) 30 Pool 2 (depth 0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Boulders None Small Gravel (2-20 mm) 0 Pool 3 (depth <0.5 m) 0 0 Undercut Banks None Large Gravel (21-65 mm) 0 Run 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Overhanging Vegetation Trace Cobble (66-250 mm) 0 Run 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 168 84 Woody Debris Dominant Boulder (>250 mm) 0 Run 3 (<0.5 m) 27 14 Depth None Flat 1 (>1.0 m) 0 0 Stain/Turbulence Subdominant WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS Flat 2 (0.5-1.0 m) 0 0 Instream Vegetation Subdominant Water Temperature (oC) 15.11 Flat 3 (<0.5 m) 0 0 Other None pH 7.20 Riffle 0 0 Other None Plate 3 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of left bank. Plate 4 Photograph taken at proposed crossing of right bank. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 6.80 Impoundment 0 0 Other None Conductivity (µS/cm) 249.0 No defined channel 0 0 Other None Turbidity (visual) Clear Cascade 5 2 TOTAL COVER Moderate Risk to Crossing DFO Regulatory Fish/Fish Method Process Habitat FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL Recommended Pipeline Crossing Species Spawning Rating Rearing Rating Overwintering Rating Migration Rating Isolate if water n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- bearing All fish species present Poor Poor Poor Marginal present/open cut if dry Recommended Vehicle Crossing in Open Water Conditions FISH SPECIES PRESENT No. Captured No. Observed Fork Length FISH SAMPLING EFFORT Clear span n/a – nonfish-bearing n/a – nonfish- bridge or culvert bearing none captured or observed 0 0 n/a Date Sampled July 16, 2011 Sept. 15, 2011 Rainbow trout were previously captured downstream from the crossing near the Technique MT BPEF Peace River; however, there is a waterfall between the two locations (BC Distance (m)/No. of traps 6 traps 100 m MFLNRO 2011a,b). Map illustrating crossing location and watercourse Effort (seconds/hours) 18 hrs 300 s No. Captured 0 0 CPUE 0 0 T-North 2012 Expansion Project

ADDITIONAL HABITAT COMMENTS Existing crossing present. High flows at the time of survey. Watercourse becomes impounded at 120 m downstream, suspected beaver dam >120 m downstream (not observed but influencing downstream reach of study area) and woody debris dominant within channel. Cascades observed within study reach. Notes: BPEF - backpack electrofishing, MT - minnow trapping, CPUE for BPEF is fish/100 seconds of effort, CPUE for MT is fish/1hr of effort

See Figure 2 for legend Page A-9