Prepared For: Dawson Creek Ministry of Forests
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
9 10 11 12 7 8 ek re katoo n C Sas TWP. 79, RGE. 15 W6M M TWP. 79, RGE. 14 W6M c Q 4 6 5 3 2 1 u e e n C r e e k S S E E D23 E E F F I I ! ! G G U U R R E E WC7 2 2 G E 31 32 33 34 35 36 McQueen Slough TWP. 78, RGE. 15 W6M TWP. 78, RGE. 14 W6M 25 30 29 28 27 26 B r i RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 t RGE. 13 RGE. 12 W6M RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 i SCALE: 1:20,000 s FIGURE 2F Alberta h m C TWP. 80 o l 0 200 400 600 u m b (All Locations Approximate) i NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED a GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79 ! Watercourse Crossing DATA SOURCES: Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; TWP. 78 Watercourse Crossing, Drainage: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; ! Drainage Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey). Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 Proposed Pipeline this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 19 20 5745_ESA_Fig2F_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd 12 7 9 10 11 r e v i TWP. 79, RGE. 13 W6M TWP. 79, RGE. 14 W6M R e u p e Co Pouc 6 2 1 4 3 S E E F D24 I G ! U R E 2 F D25 D26 ! ! ! 31 35 36 32 33 34 WC8 S E E F I G U TWP. 78, RGE. 14 W6M R E 2 H TWP. RGE. TWP. 78, 13 W6M 29 28 30 27 26 25 B r i RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 t RGE. 13 RGE. 12 W6M RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 i SCALE: 1:20,000 s Alberta FIGURE 2G h m C TWP. 80 o l 0 200 400 600 u m 29 28 b (All Locations Approximate) i NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED a GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79 ! Watercourse Crossing DATA SOURCES: Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; TWP. 78 Watercourse Crossing, Drainage: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; ! Drainage Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey). Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 Proposed Pipeline this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 5745_ESA_Fig2G_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd 12 8 9 10 11 7 B R I T I A S H L B C TWP. 79, E O R TWP. 79, RGE. 13 W6M RGE. 13 W6M T L U A M B 2 1 I 5 4 3 6 A S E E F I G ! ! ! U R E 2 I TWP. 78, TWP. 78, RGE. 13 W6M RGE. 13 W6M 34 35 32 33 31 k ree C nt ea rg e D30 S S E D29 ! E ! F I D31 G D27 D28 U R ! E ! ! ! 2 G WC9 30 29 28 27 26 B r i RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 t RGE. 13 RGE. 12 W6M RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 i Alberta FIGURE 2H SCALE: 1:20,000 s h m C TWP. 80 o l 0 200 400 600 u m b (All Locations Approximate) i a NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION30 LIMITED 30 29 GROUNDBIRCH30 PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79 ! Watercourse Crossing DATA SOURCES: ! Drainage Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; TWP. 78 25 ! Potential Watercourse Crossing Watercourse Crossing, Drainage: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Potential Watercourse Crossing: TERA Environmental Consultants 2009; Proposed Pipeline Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey). Proposed Pipeline Section Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 Not Assessed by Fish Crew this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 5745_ESA_Fig2H_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd 9 10 11 12 7 8 TWP. 79, RGE. 12 W6M S TWP. 79, E E RGE. 13 W6M F I G U R E 2 ! J 3 2 ! 5 4 1 6 S E ! E F I G U R E 2 H TWP. 78, RGE. 12 W6M TWP. 78, RGE. 13 W6M 33 34 31 32 35 36 B r i t RGE. 12 W6M RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 i RGE. 13 SCALE: 1:20,000 s FIGURE 2I Alberta h m C TWP. 80 o l u 0 200 400 600 m b (All Locations Approximate) i NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED a GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT April 2009 5745 TWP. 79 27 ! Potential Watercourse Crossing DATA SOURCES: 29 28 26 25 Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, 30 Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; TWP. 78 Proposed Pipeline Potential Watercourse Crossing: TERA Environmental Consultants 2009; Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey). Proposed Pipeline Section Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 Not Assessed by Fish Crew this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 5745_ESA_Fig2I_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd H en de rso n Creek 15 17 16 14 13 18 TWP. 79, RGE. 11 W6M TWP. 79, RGE. 12 W6M 10 9 8 7 11 12 Alberta System Tie-in 2-12-79-12 W6M [ ! S WC11 E WC10 E F ! I G U R E 3 2 4 I 5 6 2 1 B r i t RGE. 12 W6M RGE. 18 W6M RGE. 17 RGE. 16 RGE. 15 RGE. 14 i RGE. 13 SCALE: 1:20,000 s Alberta FIGURE 2J h m C TWP. 80 o l u 0 200 400 600 m b (All Locations Approximate) i NOVA GAS TRANSMISSION LIMITED a GROUNDBIRCH PIPELINE PROJECT TWP. 78, RGE. 11 W6M April 2009 5745 TWP. 79 ! Watercourse Crossing DATA SOURCES: Imagery: SPOT 5 Satellite Imagery © 2009 CNES, 33 Licensed by Iunctus Geomatics Corp., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; 31 32 TWP.35 78, RGE. 12 W6M TWP. 78 36 34 Proposed Pipeline Watercourse Crossing: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Potential Watercourse Crossing: TERA Environmental Consultants 2009; Pipeline Routing: March 13, 2009 (Provided by Midwest Survey). Proposed Pipeline Section Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate TWP. 77 Not Assessed by Fish Crew this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 5745_ESA_Fig2J_Waterxing_Rev0.mxd NOVA Gas Transmission Limited 2008 Aquatic Assessment Groundbirch Pipeline Project April 2009 / 5745 3.2 Watercourse Crossings in Alberta In Alberta, the two watercourses identified were within the Pouce Coupe River sub-basin (Figure 2h,i,j). The two watercourses that will be crossed are unnamed tributaries to Henderson Creek (WC10 and WC11). Henderson Creek is a direct tributary to the Pouce Coupe River. The classification and accompanying RAP for the watercourses in Alberta were determined according to the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (AENV 2000a) and the Code of Practice Grande Prairie Management Area Map (AENV 2006). Of the two unnamed tributaries to Henderson Creek, one is mapped and the other is unmapped (AENV 2006). The mapped unnamed tributary to Henderson Creek (WC10) is located in LSD 16-2-79-12 W6M and is uncoded; therefore, it has a Class D designation with no RAP. The remaining watercourse flows into the same unnamed tributary to Henderson Creek and has the same Class and RAP. Henderson Creek is also an uncoded Class D stream with no RAP. 3.3 Aquatic Habitat Assessment This section summarizes the results of the aquatic habitat assessment. Table 4 provides mean channel characteristics from the entire sample reach and Table 5 provides fish habitat potential ratings for fish- bearing watercourses. Site-specific data and photographs for each watercourse crossing assessment are provided in Appendix A. At the time of assessment, 6 of the 11 watercourses were dry. In B.C., there were five dry watercourses (WC1, WC4, WC5, WC6, WC7), and in Alberta, there was one (WC11). In addition, two watercourses, Fox Creek (WC2) and Sergeant Creek (WC9) in B.C. had standing water but no discernable flow (i.e., back flooding from a beaver dam downstream, low water levels, or low water barriers). The remaining three watercourses, the Kiskatinaw River (WC3) and Pouce Coupe River (WC8) in B.C. and the unnamed tributary to Henderson Creek (WC10) had flowing water at the time of the assessment. Watercourses that were dry or had standing water were identified as intermittent watercourses. Table 4 summarizes the water quality parameter measurements for the three watercourses that had flowing water and the two watercourses that had standing water. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2005) guideline for the protection of aquatic life for pH ranges from 6.5 to 9.0 and for coldwater biota DO is 9.5 mg/L in early life stages and 6.5 mg/L in other life stages. The pH levels for all five watercourses measured at the time of the survey were within the preferred range for the protection of aquatic life.