NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING The state of the environment in the Project area has changed dramatically since settlers arrived in the northeastern BC and northwestern Alberta area in the early 1900s using the Athabasca, Edson and Hinton trails. Further information on these changes is provided in the cumulative effects assessment (Section 7.0 of this ESA).

The following subsections present a summary of the environmental and socio-economic setting of the Project. The spatial boundaries of elements discussed in the environmental setting are described in Section 6.2 of this ESA. The environmental setting was compiled based on the following sources:

• aquatic, vegetation, wetland, wildlife and heritage resources field studies conducted for the Project;

• existing published literature including topographic maps, aerial photography, scientific papers, and reference books, as well as municipal, provincial and federal government maps, reports, interactive websites, guides, information letters, fact sheets and databases; and

• personal communications with Aboriginal communities, local communities and land users, local and regional governments, federal and provincial government agencies and the general public.

Methods of obtaining resource material included searching libraries, internet searches and receiving documents directly from government agencies. References used in the preparation of the environmental and socio-economic setting of this ESA are cited in Section 5.19 of this ESA.

The supporting studies for this ESA are provided in Appendices 1 through 7 of this ESA.

The environmental setting is divided into subsections according to either the environmental or social setting component. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation are presented in Section 6.2 of this ESA.

Known reference points along the proposed pipeline loops are commonly referred to as KPs which are approximately 1 km apart and are primarily used to describe features along the proposed pipeline loops for construction, operation, and maintenance purposes. Refer to Section 1.1 of this ESA for a complete description of the KP designators set to distinguish the separate pipeline loops. For the Kyklo Creek Section, KPK 0.0 is located in BC near the existing Sierra Gas Plant in b-25-K/94-I-11 while the end (KPK 29.1) is located in a-97-F/94-I-10. For the Timberwolf Section, KPT 0.0 is located at the applied-for NGTL Moody Creek Compressor Station in NW 3-109-12 W6M and the end point(KPT 49.8) is located in NW 6-104-12 W6M at the existing NGTL Snowfall Creek Meter Station. For the Cranberry Section, KPC 0.0 is located at the NGTL Chinchaga Meter Station at NE 13-96-5 W6M and the end (KPC 32.3) is located at the existing NGTL Chinchaga Meter Station at SW 31-96-7 W6M.

The spatial boundaries used in measuring each environmental or social component discussed in the setting considered one or more of the following areas.

• A Footprint, made up of the area directly disturbed by the Project construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (e.g., permanent rights-of-way, temporary construction camps, temporary workspaces for construction and block valve sites)

• An LSA that varies with the environment and resource use related socio-economic element being considered. For each element considered, the LSA is established based on the zone of influence (ZOI) within which plants, animals and humans are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. Detailed discussions regarding the LSA and associated rationale are provided in Section 6.2 of this ESA. For social elements (e.g., human occupancy and resource use), local potential effects are related to specific communities considered in the socio-economic assessment. The communities considered were based on whether there would be direct potential effects, such as a physical, social or economic interaction between the Project and the community or community residents and their economic, social or cultural resources and pursuits. The communities considered in the socio-economic assessment include:

– Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section): Northern Rockies Regional Municipality (NRRM);

Page 5-1

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

– Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section): Town of Rainbow Lake, Town of High Level and County of Northern Lights; and

– Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section): Town of Manning and Clear Hills County.

• For Aboriginal communities, consideration was given to whether the Project was within 50 km of Aboriginal communities’ traditional territory as they defined it. The Aboriginal communities considered in the socio-economic assessment include:

– Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section): Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation and Dene Tha’ First Nation;

– Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section): Doig River First Nation, Dene Tha’ First Nation, Beaver First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement; and Duncan’s First Nation; and

– Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section): Doig River First Nation, Dene Tha’ First Nation, Beaver First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement and Duncan’s First Nation.

An RSA consists of the area extending beyond the LSA boundary and varies with the environment and resource use related socio-economic element being considered. For each element considered, a separate spatial RSA boundary was established in consideration of the Project regional effects on the individual element. Further rationale for the establishment of the Project RSA(s) is provided in Section 6.2 of this ESA.

The ecological boundary is described in the discussions of each applicable biological element. Spatial ecological boundaries were determined by the distribution, movement patterns and potential zones of interaction between an element and the Project. The ecological boundary may be limited to the Footprint (e.g., proposed pipeline construction right-of-way) or extend beyond the physical boundaries of the area of the Project component since the distribution or movement of an element can be local, regional or provincial in extent.

Reconnaissance and detailed field studies, as well as desktop studies, considered a minimum corridor width of approximately 100 m wide corridor centred on the proposed pipeline loops, as well as known areas where temporary workspace is expected to be necessary. In the event an area of interest was identified (e.g., rare plant or wildlife feature such as a mineral lick), field crews expanded their survey as appropriate (no greater than the LSA) to identify the extent and distribution of the area of interest, and ensure a comprehensive assessment of the environmental characteristics of the proposed pipeline loop being considered.

5.1 Physical and Meteorological Environment This subsection presents a summary of the physical and meteorological environmental setting found in the Physical Environment RSA (see Figure 6.1). It describes the physiographic, geologic and meteorological conditions documented near the three proposed pipeline loops and associated facilities. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to physical and meteorological environment are discussed in Section 6.2.1 of this ESA.

5.1.1 Physiography Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section lies in the Fort Nelson Lowland Subregion of the Great Plains Physiographic Region (Valentine et al. 1978). The Great Plains Physiographic Region is characterized by structurally controlled topography with mesas and cuestas, developed on flat-lying or gently dipping sandstones and shales. The sandstones are relatively resistant to erosion and are found in upland or level areas along this proposed pipeline loop. Terrain along the Kyklo Creek Section is generally level to undulating. Elevations along this proposed pipeline loop range from 384 to 434 m above sea level (asl).

Page 5-2

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section traverses the Clear Hills Uplands Division of the Northern Alberta Uplands Physiographic Region (Pettapiece 1986). This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Rainbow Lake Plain and Chinchaga Plain Districts. Terrain is generally level to undulating along the Timberwolf Section with moderate slopes encountered at selected watercourse crossings (i.e., the Little Buffalo River and Chasm Creek). Steep slopes were noted at the watercourse crossing of Hay River at KPT 5.9. Elevations along this proposed pipeline loop range from 430 to 692 m asl.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section is located in the Clear Hills Uplands Division of the Northern Alberta Uplands Physiographic Region (Pettapiece 1986). This proposed pipeline loop lies in the Clear Hills Plain and Chinchaga Plain Districts. Terrain is generally level to gently rolling along the Cranberry Section with some moderate slopes encountered along segments from approximately KPC 0.4 to KPC 0.9 and from KPC 20.0 to KPC 23.0. Elevations along this proposed pipeline loop range from 651 to 988 m asl.

5.1.2 Bedrock Geology Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section is underlain by marine shales of the Lower Cretaceous Fort St. John Group belonging to the Shaftesbury Formation. The upper contact of this formation, with the overlying Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation, is gradational with sandy siltstones and fine-grained sandstones occurring as interbeds in silty shales (Ferbey et al. 2005, Macintyre et al. 1998). These formations are characterized by dark grey marine shale, siltstone, sideric concretions and marine sandstone; fine- grained grey sandstone, siltstone and shale; and massive conglomerate, fine to coarse-grained sandstone and carbonaceous shale (marine and non-marine).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section is underlain by sedimentary bedrock of Upper and Lower Cretaceous age (Hamilton et al. 1999). The portion of this proposed pipeline loop from approximately KPT 0.0 to KPT 34.0 traverses the Shaftesbury Formation and the remainder of this loop traverses the Dunvegan Formation (Hamilton et al. 1999). The Shaftesbury Formation is characterized by dark grey fish-scale bearing shale; silty in upper part; numerous nodules and thin beds of concretionary ironstone; bentonite partings; lower part with thin silty and sandy intervals; marine origin while the Dunvegan Formation is characterized by grey; fine-grained feldspathic sandstone with hard calcareous beds; laminated siltstone and grey silty shale of deltaic to marine origin (Hamilton et al. 1999).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section is underlain by sedimentary bedrock of Upper and Lower Cretaceous age (Hamilton et al. 1999) traversing the Kaskapau, Dunvegan and Puskwaskau formations. The Puskwaskau Formation is traversed from approximately KPC 0 to KPC 21 and is characterized by dark grey fossiliferous shale, silty in upper part and of marine origin. The Kaskapau Formation is traversed from approximately KPC 21 to KPC 22 and is underlain by dark grey silty shale, thin concretionary ironstone beds interbedded with fine-grained quartzose sandstone and thin beds of ferruginous oolitic mudstone (Hamilton et al. 1999). The Dunvegan Formation is traversed from approximately KPC 22 to KPC 32.3 and is underlain by grey, fine-grained feldspathic sandstone with hard calcareous beds, laminated siltstone and grey silty shale of deltaic to marine origin (Hamilton et al. 1999).

All Pipeline Loops The proposed pipeline loops do not traverse any potential coalbed methane exploration areas or operating coal mines (Alberta Energy 2010a, Alberta Energy and Resources Conservation Board 2010, BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources [MEMPR] 2009a). The closest known coal deposit to the proposed pipeline loops is the Peace River coalfield which is located approximately 250 km south of the Kyklo Creek Section (BC MEMPR 2009b). Drift thickness in the general Project area is approximately 15 m to 45 m (Pawlowicz and Fenton 1995).

Page 5-3

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) are long-lived radioactive elements of the Earth's crust normally found in low concentrations, although higher concentrations can result from human activities (Health Canada 2000). In the oil and gas industry, NORMs may be encountered in liquids and gases from hydrocarbon-bearing geological formations, contaminated soils, liberated scale deposits and accumulations of slurry debris (Health Canada 2000). NORMS are not expected to be a concern in the Project area.

5.1.3 Surficial Geology Characteristics of the surficial deposits are related to potential concerns such as compaction and rutting, trench instability, erosion hazard and steep topography.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Surficial deposits along the Kyklo Creek Section primarily consist of organic and glacial deposits. Organic deposits consist of peat and minor inorganic sediments. The organic deposits occur as large bog, fen and swamp areas where organic fill mask underly surficial materials and are generally less than 2 m thick. The glacial deposits consist of thick and continuous till (Fulton 1995). This proposed pipeline loop was glaciated by Cordilleran ice from the west and Keewatin ice from the northeast. The Keewatin till is quite thin and difficult to distinguish from the underlying bedrock. Lacustrine materials border many of the large river valleys. These materials are fine textured, have few stones and are generally saline and somewhat calcareous. Organic muskeg blankets much of the plains forming organic soils (Valentine et al. 1978).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) and Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Timberwolf Section and Cranberry sections are underlain by medium textured, thick and continuous glacial till deposits occurring on gentle to strong lower slopes and hummocky to undulating uplands, with lacustrine and organic deposits in the lowlands. Abandoned channels underlay portions of the Timberwolf Section. Colluvium and residual materials occur in places on the steeper slopes and there are scattered glaciofluvial deposits in the Physical Environment RSA for the Cranberry and Timberwolf sections. Organic deposits occur in the Chinchaga River valley and abandoned channels occur along these proposed pipeline loops (Fox et al. 1987, Fulton 1995, Natural Regions Committee 2006).

5.1.4 Natural Hazards Natural hazards can be defined as elements of the physical environment (e.g., atmospheric, hydrologic, geologic or wildfire phenomenon) which, due to location, frequency or severity, have the potential to affect humans, structures or activities in an adverse way. In general, natural hazards are avoided by the three proposed pipeline loops.

All Pipeline Loops No recorded landslides (Natural Resources Canada [NRCan] 2007a) or avalanches (NRCan 2009a) have occurred in the Physical Environment RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section, Timberwolf Section or Cranberry Section. There are no active volcanoes in the Physical Environment RSA for any of the proposed pipeline loops (NRCan 2007b). These proposed pipeline loops do not cross any fault lines (Wheeler et al. 1996). The seismic hazard potential in the Physical Environment RSA for each pipeline is low (NRCan 2011a). Peak acceleration is defined as what is experienced by a particle on the ground, while spectral acceleration is approximately what is experienced by a building (US Geological Survey [USGS] 2009). Seismically active locations are those with greater than 2% probability of exceeding a peak ground acceleration of 0.15 g within 50 years. Seismic Hazard Map 5 of 5 of the 2005 National Building Code of Canada indicates the median peak ground acceleration (PGA) in the Physical Environment RSA for each pipeline loop is 0.059 g, with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (NRCan 2011b). Therefore, lands along the three proposed pipeline loops are not considered to be seismically active.

No major flooding events have occurred in the Physical Environment RSA for any of the proposed pipeline loops in BC and Alberta for the recorded period of 1902 to 2005 (NRCan 2007c). However, flooding is a natural process and all areas around watercourses have the potential for flooding and all slopes and banks of watercourses have the potential for erosion. Moderate slopes are encountered along the Cranberry Section from approximately KPC 0.4 to KPC 0.9 and from KPC 20.0 to KPC 23.0.

Page 5-4

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section is located in an area of sporadic, discontinuous permafrost (10-50%) (NRCan 2003). A detailed geotechnical program is currently underway to delineate the location and depth of permafrost along the Kyklo Creek Section.

From 2001 to 2009, there were no forest fire hotspots near this proposed pipeline loop (NRCan 2009b). In 2009, the fire danger rating was rated as high in the Physical Environment RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section (NRCan 2009c).

The Government of BC has established the Floodplain Mapping Program to identify and map areas that are highly susceptible to flooding (BC Ministry of Environment [MOE] 2007). These areas are termed 'designated floodplains' and are subject to development restrictions. There are no designated floodplains within the Physical Environment RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section (BC MOE 2007).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section is located in an area of sporadic, discontinuous permafrost (10-50%) (NRCan 2003). Geotechnical studies to identify permafrost locations have not been conducted to date. Geotechnical studies will be conducted in 2011 and will include hand augering at select locations. If any evidence of permafrost is found, additional studies may be conducted to further delineate the occurrence.

In 2009, the fire danger was rated moderate in the Physical Environment RSA of the Timberwolf Section (NRCan 2009c). In 1982, three separate wildfires consumed between 1,506 ha and 8,055 ha of land in the vicinity of the Timberwolf Section. In 1990, 1993 and 1994, three wildfires consumed approximately 933 ha, 7,817 ha and 1,942 ha of land, respectively, near this proposed pipeline loop. In 1998, a wildfire consumed approximately 542 ha of land along the Timberwolf Section. In 2002, a wildfire consumed approximately 4,150 ha of land in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop (NRCan 2007d). There were forest fire hotspots immediately east of the Timberwolf Section in 2002, 2006 and 2008 (NRCan 2009b). No historic fire polygons are traversed by this proposed pipeline loop (ASRD 2009a). Additionally, The Timberwolf Section is not identified within or near any flood hazard areas (AENV 2011a).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section is located in an area of no permafrost (NRCan 2003).

In 2009, the fire danger was rated from low to moderate in the Physical Environment RSA of the Cranberry Section (NRCan 2009c). In 1980, a wildfire consumed approximately 81,916 ha of land along this proposed pipeline loop. In 1990, a wildfire consumed approximately 496 ha of land and in 1993, a wildfire consumed approximately 359 ha of land, both fires were north and south of the west end of the Cranberry Section, respectively (NRCan 2007d). From 2001 to 2009, there were no forest fire hotspots in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop. This proposed pipeline loop crosses a historic forest fire polygon (from 1950) in 20, 21 29, 30 and 31-96-7 W6M and another fire polygon (from 1980) in Township 96 Ranges 5 and 6 W6M (ASRD 2009a). The Cranberry Section is not located within or near a flood hazard area (AENV 2011a).

5.1.5 Climate 5.1.5.1 Regional Climate Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section is located in the Boreal White and Black Spruce (BWBS) Biogeoclimatic (BGC) Zone of BC. The BWBS BGC Zone is characterized by a northern continental climate with frequent exposure to Arctic air masses (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). Winters are long and cold in the BWBS BGC Zone, thereby allowing only a short growing season. Mean annual temperatures range from -24.5°C to 16.6°C with extreme temperatures ranging from -47.2°C in the coldest months to 40.6°C in the warmest months. Although the daily maximum temperature can be quite high in mid-summer, monthly averages remain below 0°C for 5 to 7 months of the year and above 10°C for only 2 to 4 months. Annual precipitation averages from 330 to 570 mm, with 35-55% of this falling as snow. The wettest month in the BWBS BGC Zone is typically July and the driest month is typically April (Meidinger and Pojar 1991).

Page 5-5

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

No major tornadoes or hailstorms have been recorded in the Physical Environment RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section since 1879 and 1901, respectively (NRCan 2007e,f). However, hailstorms have the potential to occur at any location (NRCan 2007f).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section lies in the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion (Natural Regions Committee 2006). The Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion is the third largest natural subregion in Alberta and has slightly colder winters and longer, warmer summers than the Upper Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion. It is also moister and cooler than the adjacent Central Mixedwood and Dry Mixedwood Natural Subregions. February is typically the driest month while precipitation peaks in July. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 394 mm to 620 mm while the mean annual number of frost-free days ranges from 81 to 118. The mean temperature in the warmest month is 15°C while the mean temperature in the coldest month is -20°C (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

No major tornadoes or hailstorms have been recorded in the Physical Environment RSA of the Timberwolf Section since 1879 and 1901, respectively (NRCan 2007e,f). However, hailstorms have the potential to occur at any location (NRCan 2007f).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section is located in the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion and the Upper Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Subregion (Natural Regions Committee 2006). For a description of the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion, see the Timberwolf Section above.

The Upper Boreal Highlands Subregion is surrounded by the Lower Boreal Highlands Subregion and has shorter, cooler summers and lower growing degree-day accumulations than the surrounding Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion. Peak precipitation occurs in July and monthly precipitation patterns are very similar to those of the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion, with slightly higher winter precipitation. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 460 mm to 603 mm while the mean annual number of frost-free days ranges from 88 to 111. The mean temperature in the warmest month is 14.3°C while the mean temperature in the coldest month is -19.9°C (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

No major tornadoes or hailstorms have been recorded in the Physical Environment RSA of the Cranberry Section since 1879 and 1901, respectively (NRCan 2007e,f). However, hailstorms have the potential to occur at any location (NRCan 2007f).

5.1.5.2 Local Climate Climatic averages for Fort Nelson, BC, High Level, Alberta and Peace River, Alberta are presented in Table 5.1. These are the nearest Environment Canada meteorological stations in BC and Alberta to the proposed pipeline loops, for which climatic data are available.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Fort Nelson, located approximately 80 km west of KPK 0.0, is the closest Environment Canada meteorological station to the Kyklo Creek Section. Average monthly rainfall for Fort Nelson is 26.7 mm. Although rain has the potential to occur during all months of the year, the peak period of rainfall is from June through August. Average rainfall between these three months is 74.1 mm. In August of 1964, Fort Nelson recorded its highest daily rainfall of 80.5 mm, well above the average of 68.3 mm for the month of August (Environment Canada 2010a).

Average monthly snowfall for Fort Nelson is 14.8 cm. Snowfall has the potential to occur year-round except for in July, peaking from November through February. Average snowfall during these months is 22.0 cm. In December 1947, Fort Nelson recorded its highest daily snowfall of 35.3 cm, almost 10 cm above the 26.7 cm average for December (Environment Canada 2010a).

Average yearly temperature for Fort Nelson is -0.7° C. July is the warmest month averaging 16.8° C. January is the coolest month, averaging -21.2° C. In July of 1942, Fort Nelson experienced its warmest day at 36.7° C. In January 1947, Fort Nelson experienced its coolest day at -51.7° C (Environment Canada 2010a).

Page 5-6

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Fort Nelson experiences average wind speeds of 6.5 km/h, peaking in May and June at 8.7 km/h. In July of 1975, Fort Nelson recorded its maximum hourly wind speed at 121 km/h. The predominant wind direction in Fort Nelson is from the northwest.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) High Level, located approximately 160 km east of KPT 0.0, is the closest Environment Canada meteorological station to the Timberwolf Section. Average monthly rainfall for High Level is 21.6 mm. Although rain has the potential to occur during all months of the year, the peak period of rainfall is from June through August. Average rainfall during these three months is 58.1 mm. In July 1998, High Level recorded its highest daily rainfall of 103.4 mm, well above the average of 65.5 mm for the month of July (Environment Canada 2010a).

Average monthly snowfall for High Level is 13 cm. Snowfall has the potential to occur year-round except for in June and July, peaking from November through March. Average snowfall during these months is 24.2 cm. In May 1989, High Level recorded its highest daily snowfall of 42.6 cm, well above the 5.3 cm average for May (Environment Canada 2010a).

Average yearly temperature for High Level is -1.2° C. July is the warmest month averaging 16.2° C. January is the coolest month, averaging -21.6° C. In August 1981, High Level experienced its warmest day at 35.2° C. In January 1972, High Level experienced its coolest day at -50.6° C (Environment Canada 2010a).

High Level experiences average wind speeds of 7.8 km/h, peaking in April and May at 9.9 km/h. In February of 1985, High Level recorded its maximum hourly wind speed at 120 km/h. The predominant wind direction in High Level is from the north (Environment Canada 2010a).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Peace River, located approximately 145 km south of KPC 0.0, is the closest Environment Canada meteorological station to the Cranberry Section. Average monthly rainfall for Peace River is 24.5 mm. Although rain has the potential to occur during all months of the year, the peak period of rainfall is from June through August. Average rainfall during these three months is 64.3 mm. In May 2000, Peace River recorded its highest daily rainfall of 53 mm, well above the average of 32.8 mm for the month of May (Environment Canada 2010a).

Average monthly snowfall for Peace River is 10 cm. Snowfall has the potential to occur year-round except for in June and July, peaking from November through February. Average snowfall between these months is 20.9 cm. In April 1966, Peace River recorded its highest daily snowfall of 26.2 cm, well above the 6.7 cm average for April (Environment Canada 2010a).

Average yearly temperature for Peace River is 1.2° C. July is the warmest month averaging 16° C. January is the coolest month, averaging -16.6° C. In July 1945, Peace River experienced its warmest day at 36.7° C. In January 1950, Peace River experienced its coolest day at -49.4° C (Environment Canada 2010a).

Peace River experiences average wind speeds of 12.6 km/h, peaking in May and June at 14.2 km/h. In January 1986, Peace River recorded its maximum hourly wind speed at 100 km/h. The predominant wind direction in Peace River is from the southwest (Environment Canada 2010a).

Page 5-7

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.1

SNOWFALL, RAINFALL AND TEMPERATURE AVERAGES (1971-2000) FOR FORT NELSON, BC, HIGH LEVEL, ALBERTA AND PEACE RIVER, ALBERTA

Station Location Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Year AVERAGE MONTHLY RAINFALL (mm) Fort Nelson 0.4 0.1 0.2 7 43.3 69.1 84.9 68.3 36.2 9.4 0.8 0.2 26.7 High Level 0.2 0.3 0.4 8 31.3 58.3 65.5 50.5 32 12.1 0.6 0.3 21.6 Peace River 0.4 0.4 0.8 9.7 32.8 70.9 66.6 55.3 38.5 14.8 3.5 0.6 24.5 EXTREME DAILY RAINFALL (mm) Fort Nelson 4.1 5.1 4.1 20.3 42 52.1 62 80.5 38.1 19.2 5.6 1.4 - High Level 2 4.6 3.4 26 26.4 68.6 103.4 68.3 35.8 20.6 3.9 3.4 - Peace River 5.3 3.4 7.6 20 53 43.7 43.4 45.2 52.5 17.6 11.1 5.4 - AVERAGE MONTHLY SNOWFALL (cm) Fort Nelson 26.5 22.6 20.9 14.8 5.9 0.1 0 0.5 4.6 23 32.3 26.7 14.8 High Level 24.7 20.6 20 8.5 5.3 0 0 0.1 2.2 18.3 30.6 25.3 13 Peace River 23.1 18.2 14 6.7 2.5 0 0 0.2 2.5 9.9 19.8 22.5 10 EXTREME DAILY SNOWFALL (cm) Fort Nelson 24.6 19.6 23.1 32.2 33.8 2.3 0 5 20.3 35.3 28.4 35.3 - High Level 17.8 11.4 18.3 21.6 42.6 0 0 1.7 12.5 30.4 19.6 19.5 - Peace River 16 20.3 17.8 26.2 23.4 0 0 4.6 14 20.3 16.8 16.4 - AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURES (°C) Fort Nelson -21.2 -16.1 -7.7 2.9 10 14.9 16.8 14.9 9.1 0.6 -13 -19.9 -0.7 High Level -21.6 -17.5 -9.6 2 9.6 14.3 16.2 14.3 8.4 0.7 -12.3 -19.7 -1.2 Peace River -16.6 -12.7 -5.9 3.7 10.2 14.2 16 14.7 9.5 3 -8 -14.2 1.2 EXTREME DAILY TEMPERATURES (°C) Fort Nelson (max) 10.7 15 17.8 27.3 32.1 33.9 36.7 34.4 32.8 26.7 18.3 10.7 - Fort Nelson (min) -51.7 -48.3 -39.4 -34.4 -15 -1.1 1.1 -4.5 -16.7 -28.6 -41.1 -47.8 - High Level (max) 10.5 14.6 14 30.2 33.9 31.5 34.4 35.2 30.2 25.2 15 14.2 - High Level (min) -50.6 -46.1 -45 -32.2 -11.2 -3.6 -0.2 -4.4 -13.9 -36.3 -43.4 -47.2 - Peace River (max) 10 11.2 15.1 29.3 32.8 33.3 36.7 36.7 32.8 25.6 18.9 11.7 - Peace River (min) -49.4 -46.7 -40.6 -38.9 -10 -4.4 0.8 -3.7 -15.6 -30 -42.2 -46.7 - AVERAGE MONTHLY WIND SPEED (km/h) Fort Nelson 4.4 5.3 6.9 8.3 8.8 8.6 7.5 7.2 6.8 6.2 4.5 4 6.5 High Level 6.4 7.5 8.7 9.8 9.9 8.6 7.5 7.2 7.8 8.1 6.7 5.6 7.8 Peace River 11.7 12.4 12.4 13.7 14.4 13.9 12 11.3 12.4 13.4 11.8 11.9 12.6 MAXIMUM HOURLY WIND SPEED (km/h) Fort Nelson 63 46 56 48 56 53 56 48 64 72 47 53 - High Level 50 56 46 50 50 50 56 39 48 59 44 52 - Peace River 56 60 53 64 55 56 61 56 56 72 56 65 - Source: Environment Canada 2010a

5.2 Soils and Soil Productivity This subsection presents a summary of the soil landscapes and characteristics found in the Soils RSA (see Figure 6.1) of the three proposed pipeline loops. It describes the soil characteristics and potential concerns associated with soil landscapes found near the three proposed pipeline loops. Locations of soil types encountered along the proposed pipeline loops are identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 9 of this ESA). Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to soil and soil productivity are discussed in Section 6.2.2 of this ESA.

Page 5-8

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.2.1 Soil Characteristics Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section lies in the Fort Nelson Lowland Subregion of the Great Plains Physiographic Region. Most of this proposed pipeline loop is underlain by Gray Luvisols (Valentine et al. 1978). Gray Luvisols have a thin layer of decaying leaves, needles and grasses that have accumulated on the soil surface; a gray or grayish brown, distinctly platy Ae horizon, 10-30 cm thick; and light brownish gray or dark grayish brown B horizons, 50-100 cm thick. The C horizon is often similar in texture and colour to the B horizons but lacks a well developed structure. Gray Luvisols usually have L, F and H horizons and may have a degraded Ah or Abe horizon that resembles the upper A horizon of Dark Gray Chernozemic soils. Gray Luvisols vary structurally and chemically because of the nature of their parent materials. The parent materials are usually base saturated and commonly calcareous, but some Gray Luvisols have developed in acid materials (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada [AAFC] 1998). Those soils that have developed on till, lacustrine or fluvial deposits derived from slightly calcareous, somewhat saline sandstones and shales usually have strongly developed columnar and subangular blocky structure in the B horizons. Those soils developed on deposits derived from acid or calcareous materials usually lack this strongly developed soil structure (Valentine et al. 1978).

Soils along the east end of this proposed pipeline loop are Organic Cryosols and Luvic Greysols, in a subaquic very cold subarctic soil climate (Valentine et al. 1978). The Organic Cryosol soil landscape in the Fort Nelson Lowlands generally consists of soils that have permafrost within 1 m of the surface. The surface of these soils is composed of poorly-decomposed reddish or yellowish brown fibric peat, overlying frozen peat that is similar in appearance. Organic fibres in these soils lack large ice lenses and are held together by ice coatings. Organic Cryosols are greater than 40 cm thick or greater than 10 cm thick over either a lithic contact or an ice layer that is at least 30 cm thick (AAFC 1998). Concerns associated with Organic Cryosols include a high water table, the potential for extensive erosion and fluctuating levels of permafrost throughout the year (Valentine et al. 1978).

The moisture regime of Luvic Greysols is humid for most of the year, but there are short periods of complete saturation. They may have organic surface horizons and an Ah horizon. Luvic Gleysols commonly occur on poorly-drained sites in association with Luvisolic soils (AAFC 1998). A typical Luvic Gleysol has a thin layer of raw organic litter on the soil surface; a bleached, gray, mottled, platy Aeg horizon, 5 to 10 cm thick; a dark gray, mottled Btg horizon with rounded or subangular blocky structure (when dry), 10 to 15 cm thick; and a mottled light olive brown C horizon (Valentine et al. 1978). In some cases the A horizon is very dark when moist, but its eluvial features are usually evident on drying (AAFC 1998).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section is located within the Lower Boreal Highlands Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Soils in the Lower Boreal Highlands Subregion are predominantly Orthic Gray Luvisols; however, Gleyed subgroups are common. Orthic Gray Luvisols have well-developed Ae and Bt horizons and usually have organic surface horizons. Faint mottling may occur immediately above or in the Bt horizon. Gleysolic soils have a horizon or subhorizon, at least 10 cm thick (the upper boundary of which occurs within 50 cm of the mineral surface) and have properties that indicate prolonged periods of intermittent or continuous saturation with water and reducing conditions during their genesis (AAFC 1998). Steep erosional slopes are characterized by Regosolic soils while Typic and Terric Mesisols are the dominant organic soils in poor-to-rich fens. Bogs generally have Fibric Mesisol soils and occasional Organic Cryosols. Peaty Gleysols are common (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

Moss bog occupies a substantial portion of the Soils RSA of the Timberwolf Section. Most of the Soils RSA in Alberta has poorly-drained soils. The better drained soils are Grey Wooded and are principally formed on glacial till (Lindsay et al. 1958, 1959). Gleyed grey wooded soils are common in areas of level to depressional topography.

Page 5-9

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section is located in the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion and the Upper Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion (Natural Regions Committee 2006). See the Timberwolf Section above for a description of soils in the Lower Boreal Highlands.

Soils in the Upper Boreal Highlands Subregion are weakly developed due to the cold, moist environment characteristic of this subregion. Orthic Gray Luvisols are the dominant soils with significant occurrences of Gleyed Gray Luvisols, Eluviated and Gleyed Eutric Brunisols and Brunisolic Gray Luvisols. Gleyed Gray Luvisols differ from Orthic Gray Luvisols by having either distinct mottles that indicate gleying within 50 cm of the mineral surface, or prominent mottles at depths of 50-100 cm (AAFC 1998). Eluviated Eutric Brunisols have an eluvial horizon, Ae or Aej, at least 2 cm thick while Gleyed Eutric Brunisols have faint to distinct mottles within 50 cm of the mineral surface, or distinct or prominent mottles at depths of 50-100 cm (AAFC 1998). Fens occupy about 15% of this subregion and are characterised by Mesisols. Bogs are characterised by Fibric Mesisols and Organic Cryosols and occupy about 15 percent of the area. Rego and Peaty Gleysols occur on wet seepage sites across the subregion (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

5.2.2 Contaminated Soils The three proposed pipeline loops and associated permanent facilities do not cross any contaminated sites listed on the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI) (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2010). The relative likelihood of contamination is considered to be higher along sections on or adjacent to existing facilities or located on disturbed lands. (e.g., existing pipelines, roads and seismic lines along the proposed pipeline loops). Although there are no known areas of soil contamination, soil contaminants of concern may have been accidentally spilled during previous pipeline construction programs and operations. These may include fusion bond epoxy, liquid epoxy pipe coating, paint and various hydrocarbons. The historical land use along the three proposed pipeline loops has been forestry along with oil and gas activity (i.e., pipelines, roads, seismic lines). Possible sources of future soil contamination are limited to spot spills during construction and maintenance activities, thereby indicating an overall low potential for soil contamination along the proposed pipeline loops.

5.3 Water Quality and Quantity This subsection presents a summary of the findings related to water quality and quantity and describes the hydrological resources near the three proposed pipeline loops. Locations of watercourse crossings along the proposed pipeline loops are identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 9 of this ESA). Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to water and water quality are discussed in Section 6.2.3 of this ESA.

5.3.1 Surface Water Quantity Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section lies in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group in northeast BC. The Kotcho Lake Watershed Group flows into the Hay River Basin. This proposed pipeline loop crosses the following two watercourses and two fish-bearing drainages: Kyklo Creek; an unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek; and two fish-bearing drainage crossings that flow into Kyklo Creek and the Kotcho River. Kyklo Creek flows east into the Kotcho River, which drains into the Hay River. Open water aquatic assessments were conducted at watercourses along this proposed pipeline loop during June 2009 and a second-season sampling was conducted during October 2010. Winter aquatic habitat investigations were conducted during March 2009 along this proposed pipeline loop (Appendix 2 of this ESA). A summary of watercourse crossings along this proposed loop is provided in Table 5.2.

No designated or nominated Canadian Heritage Rivers or BC Heritage Rivers are crossed by this proposed pipeline loop (Canadian Heritage Rivers System 2010, BC MOE 2010a).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section lies in the Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin in northwest Alberta. There are 14 proposed crossings identified along this proposed pipeline loop. Watercourse crossings

Page 5-10

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 within the Hay River Basin include the Little Buffalo River and Bivouac Creek. The Hay River originates in Alberta then flows through BC and back to Alberta to the Mackenzie River in the Northwest Territories. Bivouac Creek is a tributary to the Little Buffalo River which flows across the Alberta/BC border into the Hay River in BC. Crossings in the Fontas River sub-basin include Chasm, Beaverskin and Snowfall Creeks. Beaverskin Creek is a tributary to Chasm Creek which flows across the Alberta/BC border into the Fontas River in BC. Snowfall Creek also flows across the provincial border to its confluence with the Fontas River in BC. The Fontas River then flows west to its confluence with the Fort Nelson River in BC. Open water aquatic habitat assessments were conducted in October 2010 (Appendix 2 of this ESA). In addition, a winter aquatic habitat assessment was conducted in January and February 2011. An open water assessment was not conducted on the proposed Hay River crossing due to poor weather conditions at the time of the field visit. An open water assessment of the Hay River will be conducted in summer 2011 during open water conditions. A summary of watercourse crossings along this proposed pipeline loop is provided in Table 5.2.

No designated or nominated Canadian Heritage Rivers are crossed by this proposed pipeline loop (Canadian Heritage Rivers System 2010).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section is located in the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins. The Cranberry Section crosses three watercourses and one fish-bearing drainage. The portion of this proposed pipeline loop in the Chinchaga River sub-basin crosses direct tributaries to the Chinchaga River. The portion of this proposed pipeline loop in the Notikewin River sub-basin crosses tributaries to the Meikle River, which is a direct tributary to the Notikewin River. The Chinchaga and Notikewin rivers are tributaries of the Hay and Peace rivers, respectively. The Chinchaga River originates in northeast BC from several lakes and flows northeast into Alberta to its confluence with the Hay River. The Notikewin River originates in northwest Alberta from several tributaries and flows northeast to its confluence with the Peace River. An unnamed tributary to Midget Creek and a fish-bearing drainage near the headwaters of Midget Creek are located in the Notikewin River sub-basin. Midget Creek flows for approximately 20 km to its confluence with the Meikle River which is a direct tributary to the Notikewin River. The Cranberry Section crosses the unnamed tributary to Midget Creek approximately 6 km upstream from the unnamed tributaries confluence with Midget Creek. Within the Chinchaga River sub-basin, the proposed pipeline loop crosses Sloat Creek and an unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River (which is also locally known as Starvation Creek), which are direct tributaries to the Chinchaga River. This proposed pipeline loop crosses Sloat Creek and the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River approximately 30 km and 7 km upstream, respectively, from their confluences with the Chinchaga River. Open water aquatic habitat assessments were conducted in October 2010 (Appendix 2 of this ESA). In addition, a winter aquatic habitat investigation was conducted in February 2011. A summary of watercourse crossings along this proposed pipeline loop is provided in Table 5.2.

No designated or nominated Canadian Heritage Rivers are crossed by this proposed pipeline loop (Canadian Heritage Rivers System 2010).

TABLE 5.2

SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE AND FISHBEARING DRAINAGE CROSSINGS ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOPS

Legal Location KP Name Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) c-013-K/094-I-11 KPK 1.7 Unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek a-008-L/094-I-10 KPK 20.9 Kyklo Creek a-026-J/094-I-11 KPK 7.4 Unnamed drainage to Kyklo Creek b-100-F/094-I-10 KPK 26.5 Unnamed drainage to Kotcho River Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) 5-22-108-12 W6M KPT 5.4 Hay River 6-33-106-12 W6M KPT 21.5 Little Buffalo River 10-17-106-12 W6M KPT 26.8 Unnamed tributary to Bivouac Creek 3-7-106-12 W6M KPT 29.7 Chasm Creek

Page 5-11

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.2 Cont'd

Legal Location KP Name 3-7-105-12 W6M KPT 39.6 Unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek 11-3-108-12 W6M KPT 10.0 Unnamed tributary to Hay River 11-27-107-12 W6M KPT 12.9 Unnamed tributary to Hay River 3-15-107-12 W6M KPT 17.3 Unnamed tributary to Little Buffalo River 12-21-106-12 W6M KPT 24.9 Bivouac Creek 11-6-106-12 W6M KPT 30.6 Unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek 4-31-105-12 W6M KPT 33.1 Unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek 3-30-105-12 W6M KPT 34.9 Beaverskin Creek 3-19-105-12 W6M KPT 36.4 Unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek 4-19-104-12 W6M KPT 46.0 Snowfall Creek Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) 7-23-96-5 W6M KPC 2.4 Unnamed tributary to Midget Creek 6-17-96-6 W6M KPC 17.9 Sloat Creek 10-21-96-7 W6M KPC 26.4 Unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River 3-21-96-5 W6M KPC 6.4 Unnamed drainage to Midget Creek

5.3.2 Historical Streamflow Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Water Survey of Canada does not maintain any hydrometric stations on the Hay River in BC; however, it does maintain a hydrometric station on the Hay River near the town of Meander River, Alberta (Station No. 07OB003) (Environment Canada 2011a). This station is approximately 200 km downstream on the Hay River from this proposed pipeline loop. Discharge at this station has been recorded from March to October since 1975. The annual high flow event typically occurs in May and flows gradually decline through summer and into fall. The hydrograph shows that mean monthly flows are lowest in March at 2.6 m³/s and mean flows are highest during the spring freshet with a peak in May at 234.0 m³/s (Environment Canada 2011a). The drainage area for the Hay River is 36,900 km². Data for this watercourse is presented in Figure 5.1 and Table 5.3 and includes maximum, minimum and mean monthly discharges. Since this station records flow information well downstream of the proposed pipeline loop, discharge at the time of construction may be slightly less than the recorded mean discharge resulting from small tributaries located between the stations and the proposed watercourse crossings on this pipeline loop. Flow is not measured on the Hay River at this station during the period of construction (i.e., November to April). The mean monthly flows for the Hay River in October are 63.8 m3/s and in March are 2.6 m3/s. Low mean monthly flows in the Hay River are anticipated to occur during the construction period.

Page 5-12

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

FIGURE 5.1

HISTORICAL MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (m3/s) SUMMARY FOR THE HAY RIVER NEAR MEANDER RIVER (STATION 07OB003)

700

600

500 Mean Discharge 400 Max. Discharge 300 Min. Discharge

200

100

0 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.

TABLE 5.3

HISTORICAL MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (m3/s) SUMMARY FOR THE HAY RIVER (STATION 07OB003)

Discharge Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Mean Discharge 2.55 50.3 234 185 150 112 83.9 63.8 Max. Discharge 10.6 153 460 613 431 416 288 281 Min. Discharge 0.140 0.771 28.6 21.6 13.4 8.52 4.36 3.08 Source: Environment Canada 2011a

The Kyklo Creek Section is located in the Omineca - Peace Irrigation Region in the Liard Water Licensing District (BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food 2000). The Omineca - Peace Irrigation Region supplies water to 1,292 ha of land for crop irrigation.

There is one water license (License Number: C114365) point of diversion on Metlahdoa Creek held by PTI Group Inc. for a construction camp located approximately 13 km north of KPK 0 at C/94-I-14 (BC MOE 2010b). There are no other surface water licences located on watercourses in 2 km of the proposed water crossings on this proposed pipeline loop (BC MOE 2010b).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Water Survey of Canada maintains hydrometric stations on the Hay River near the town of Meander River, Alberta (Station No. 07OB003) and the Fontas River near its confluence with the Fort Nelson River (Station No. 10CA001) (Environment Canada 2011a,b). The Hay River and Fontas River discharge stations are approximately 300 km and 150 km downstream, respectively, from this proposed pipeline loop. Discharge at the Hay River station has been recorded from March to October since 1975. Discharge at the Fontas River station has been recorded year-round since 1988. The annual high flow events typically occur in May at both stations and flows gradually decline through summer and into fall. The hydrographs show that mean monthly flows are lowest in March at 2.6 m³/s in the Hay River and in February at 1.2 m³/s in the Fontas River. The mean flows are highest in May at both stations (i.e., 234.0 m³/s in the Hay River and 93.0 m³/s in the Fontas River) (Environment Canada 2011a,b). The

Page 5-13

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 drainage area for the Fontas River is 7,400 km². Data for the Hay River Station are presented above (Figure 5.1 and Table 5.3) while data for the Fontas River Station are presented in Figure 5.2 and Table 5.4 and includes maximum, minimum and mean monthly discharges for the recorded period. Since both stations record flow information well downstream of the proposed pipeline loop, discharge at the time of construction may be slightly less than the recorded mean discharge, resulting from small tributaries located between the stations and the proposed watercourse crossings on the pipeline loop. Flow is not measured on the Hay River at this station during the period of construction (i.e., November to April). The mean monthly flows for the Hay River in October are 63.8 m3/s and in March are 2.6 m3/s. However, it is anticipated that the construction period will coincide with the low-flow period of the Hay River. The lowest mean monthly flows occur on the Fontas River during the period of construction (i.e., 8.0 m3/s in November, 1.2 m3/s in February and 2.5 m3/s in March).

FIGURE 5.2

HISTORICAL MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (m3/s) SUMMARY FOR THE FONTAS RIVER (STATION 10CA001)

250

200

150 Mean Discharge Max. Discharge Min. Discharge 100

50

0 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

TABLE 5.4

HISTORICAL MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (m3/s) SUMMARY FOR THE FONTAS RIVER (STATION 10CA001)

Discharge Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Mean Discharge 1.5 1.16 2.46 28.6 93 72.3 71.9 42 24.2 16.4 8.03 3.55 Max. Discharge 2.92 1.95 21.2 73.8 197 182 188 195 70.9 44.6 17.8 8.79 Min. Discharge 0.558 0.318 0.319 0.493 9.7 16.8 15.2 6.87 3.09 2.85 1.52 1.1 Source: Environment Canada 2011b

The Timberwolf Section is not located in any of Alberta's defined Irrigation Districts (AENV 2010). There are no active municipal surface water licenses on any watercourses crossed by this proposed pipeline loop (AENV 2007).

Page 5-14

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Water Survey of Canada maintains hydrological stations on the Chinchaga River near the town of High Level, Alberta (Station No. 07OC001) and on the Notikewin River near the town of Manning, Alberta (Station No. 07HC001) (Environment Canada 2011c,d). The Chinchaga River and Notikewin River discharge stations are approximately 200 km and 100 km downstream from the Cranberry Section. Discharge at these stations has been recorded year-round since 1970 on the Chinchaga River and since 1962 on the Notikewin River. The annual high flow event typically occurs in May on both rivers and flows gradually decline through summer and into fall. The lowest flows occur in winter and early spring before the snowpack begins to melt. The hydrograph shows that mean monthly flows are lowest in February (0.6 m³/s on the Chinchaga River and 0.2 m³/s on the Notikewin River) and mean monthly flows are highest in May (123.0 m³/s on the Chinchaga River and 57.3 m³/s on the Notikewin River) (Environment Canada 2011c,d). The drainage area for the Chinchaga River is 10,400 km2 and for the Notikewin River is 4,680 km². Data for these watercourses are presented in Figures 5.3 and 5.4 and Tables 5.5 and 5.6 and includes maximum, minimum and mean monthly discharges for the recorded period. Since both stations record flow information well downstream of the proposed pipeline loop, discharge at the time of construction may be slightly less than the recorded mean discharge, resulting from small tributaries located between the stations and the proposed watercourse crossings on the pipeline loop. The lowest mean monthly flows occur during the period of construction. The Chinchaga River has mean monthly flows that are 4.0 m3/s in November, 0.6 m3/s in February and 0.7 m3/s in March. The Notikewin River has mean monthly flows that are 1.8 m3/s in November, 0.2 m3/s in February and 0.4 m3/s in March.

FIGURE 5.3

HISTORICAL MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (m3/s) SUMMARY FOR THE CHINCHAGA RIVER NEAR HIGH LEVEL (STATION 07OC001)

450

400

350

300

250 Mean Discharge Max. Discharge 200 Min. Discharge

150

100

50

0 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

TABLE 5.5

HISTORICAL MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (m3/s) SUMMARY FOR THE CHINCHAGA RIVER (STATION 07OC001)

Discharge Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Mean Discharge 0.903 0.612 0.672 38.7 123 62.9 51.3 34 20 12.6 4.04 1.67 Max. Discharge 2.33 1.93 7.1 172 406 304 169 201 101 90 26 4.99 Min. Discharge 0.054 0 0 0.632 5.15 10.3 2.04 3.29 0.997 1.16 0.652 0.124 Source: Environment Canada 2011c

Page 5-15

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

FIGURE 5.4

HISTORICAL MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (m3/s) SUMMARY FOR THE NOTIKEWIN RIVER NEAR MANNING (STATION 07HC001)

160

140

120

100 Mean Discharge 80 Max. Discharge Min. Discharge 60

40

20

0 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

TABLE 5.6

HISTORICAL MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW (m3/s) SUMMARY FOR THE NOTIKEWIN RIVER (STATION 07HC001)

Discharge Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Mean Discharge 0.259 0.188 0.369 20.6 57.3 27.4 25.1 13.3 8.64 5.16 1.76 0.556 Max. Discharge 1.12 1 4.43 72.3 149 111 94 74.1 52.5 32.5 8.38 2.91 Min. Discharge 0 0 0 0.536 4.74 3.45 0.915 0.634 0.052 0.306 0.255 0.002 Source: Environment Canada 2011d

The Cranberry Section is not located in any of Alberta's defined Irrigation Districts (AENV 2010). There are no active municipal surface water licenses on any watercourses crossed by this proposed pipeline loop (AENV 2007).

5.3.3 Surface Water Quality Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Water Quality and Quantity RSA (see Figure 6.2) for the Kyklo Creek Section does not encounter any designated Community Watersheds in BC that are recognized by the BC Government (BC MOE 2010b). The town of Fort Nelson draws its domestic water supply directly from the Muskwa River, which lies outside the Water Quality and Quantity RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section. The number of water licenses in the Fort Nelson area is low and reflects the population base and level of development in the area. Water in the Fort Nelson area is used for industrial and domestic use. The Fort Nelson Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) identifies resource development adjacent to sensitive waterbodies, lakes, wetlands, rivers and streams as activities that need to be managed to reduce negative effects on water quality (BC Integrated Land Management Bureau [ILMB] 1997). The NRRM has recently upgraded its water system in order to increase efficiency and capacity, and provide an additional stage of water

Page 5-16

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 purification. Some of the work associated with this upgrade includes upgrading the existing pump and associated pipework, construction of a silt removal system next to the Muskwa River that will allow the NRRM to draw water from the river for a longer period of time each year, thereby increasing the capacity of the water system and lifespan of the equipment. The addition of a pump station at the Water Treatment Plant will provide water to lower elevations areas of Fort Nelson (NRRM 2011).

There are no Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) outlined for any of the watercourses crossed within the Water Quality and Quantity RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section. There are no area-specific WMPs outlined under the Fort Nelson LRMP. There are no water quality monitoring stations on watercourses crossed by this proposed pipeline loop (Environment Canada 2010b).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section does not cross any designated Community Watersheds recognized by the Alberta government (Alberta Government 2009). This proposed pipeline loop is not located in an agricultural area and, therefore, is not rated for surface water quality risk for contaminants (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2005a).

The town of Rainbow Lake draws its surface water from a reservoir that has enough volume for an eighteen-month supply. This reservoir is equipped with aeration to impede stratification and algae bloom. The construction of a new, state of the art membrane plant was completed in 2007 and included treated water storage and delivery pressure stabilization (AlbertaFirst.com 2010a). The town of High Level draws its surface water from Footner Lake which is treated by a state of the art, new water treatment plant. High Level has three reservoirs for treated water totalling 5.4 million litres, and two raw water storage reservoirs totalling 5 million litres (AlbertaFirst.com 2010b).

A policy of Mackenzie County is to work with provincial agencies and neighbouring municipalities to protect watersheds and maintain the water quality of surface and groundwater systems (Mackenzie County Municipal Development Plan [MDP] 2009). In the County of Northern Lights, all industrial development proposals will be evaluated according to any impact on water supplies and water courses, and conformity with guidelines, policies and conditions as required by Alberta Environment (County of Northern Lights 2010). In the County of Northern Lights, total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in many rivers, creeks and lakes exceed Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, which can result in the deterioration of aquatic habitats (County of Northern Lights 2010). Concentrations of bacteria occasionally exceed Alberta Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Recreation and point towards the contamination of aquatic habitats by excessive amounts of nutrients or the influx of fecal matter from humans or animals. Industrial development in the County will be evaluated according to its impact on water supplies and watercourses, and conformity with guidelines, policies and conditions as required by AENV. To date, no concerns have been raised in regards to the effects of the proposed Project on water quality in Mackenzie County or the County of Northern Lights.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section does not cross any designated Community Watersheds recognized by the Alberta government (Alberta Government 2009). This proposed pipeline loop is not located in an agricultural area and, therefore, is not rated for surface water quality risk for contaminants (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2005a).

The Clear Hills Watershed Initiative was established in 2006 as a response to incoming industries putting pressure on the water quality and quantity in Clear Hills County. Clear Hills County can be considered to have “good” water quality, since few contaminants have been found in tested streams. The apprehension over the oil and gas industries comes largely from most of the residents in the watershed relying on dugout water and, therefore, surface runoff. The maintenance of quality surface runoff relies on superior management practices in both the oil and gas industry in Clear Hills County (Clear Hills Watershed Initiative 2008). To date, no concerns have been raised in regards to the effects of the proposed Project on water quality in Clear Hills County.

Page 5-17

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.3.4 Groundwater Quantity and Quality Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) In BC, groundwater Aquifer Class refers to the aquifers' development and vulnerability. The level of development of an aquifer is determined by assessing demand versus the aquifer's yield or productivity (BC MOE 1994). Lightly developed means demand is low relative to the productivity of the aquifer. The vulnerability of an aquifer to contamination from surface sources is assessed based on type, thickness and extent of geologic materials overlying the aquifer, depth of water, and type of aquifer materials. Low vulnerability indicates that the aquifer is not very vulnerable to contamination from surface sources (BC MOE 1994). There are no known aquifers in the Water Quality and Quantity RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section (BC MOE 2010b). Groundwater reserves are limited and are not extensively used in the Fort Nelson area for domestic purposes. The town of Fort Nelson draws its domestic water supply directly from the Muskwa River, which is outside the Water Quality and Quantity RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) and Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) These proposed pipeline loops in Alberta are not located in an agricultural area and, therefore, are not rated for groundwater quality risk for contaminants or aquifer vulnerability (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2005b,c).

5.3.4.1 Groundwater Wells Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) There are numerous groundwater wells located in the Fort Nelson area; however, there are no registered groundwater wells located within a 2 km radius of the Kyklo Creek Section. The registration of groundwater wells is not mandatory in BC, therefore, unregistered wells may be present. However, given the remote location of this pipeline loop, the presence of wells is unlikely. Well uses in the Fort Nelson area include domestic, commercial and industrial use, as well as several wells with unknown uses (BC MOE 2010b). Unregistered wells may be present.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) There are no registered groundwater wells located within a 2 km radius of the Timberwolf Section (AENV 2011b). Unregistered wells may be present.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) There are four registered groundwater wells located within a 2 km radius of the Cranberry Section (the closest being 237 m from KPC 0.0). The groundwater well uses are all industrial (AENV 2011b). Unregistered wells may also be present.

5.3.4.2 Springs There are no published records of springs located within 2 km of the three proposed pipeline loops in Alberta or BC (AENV 1991, BC MOE 2010b, Borneuf 1983).

5.4 Air Emissions This subsection presents a summary of the findings related to air emissions in the Project area. Air quality in the Air Quality RSA (see Figure 6.3) is primarily a function of anthropogenic sources of emissions. Potential receptors to nuisance air emissions from the proposed Project include temporary construction camps. Locations of these communities are identified in Table 5.20 of Section 5.12 of this ESA. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to air emissions are discussed in Section 6.2.4 of this ESA.

5.4.1 Characterization of Project-Related Air Emissions The primary sources of air emissions (criteria air contaminants [CACs]) during construction will be from land clearing and open burning activities as well as from vehicle and equipment operation. During

Page 5-18

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

operation, CAC emissions will be primarily resultant of helicopter use for maintenance and inspection purposes. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities include sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM).

In BC and Alberta, the upstream oil and gas industry accounts for most of the existing CAC emissions (AENV 2008, BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection [MWLAP] 2005). Since these emissions are mainly associated with oil and gas facilities (gas plants, compressor stations etc.), contributions from the Project are considered very small. A detailed air quality assessment for the Project was conducted by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) (Appendix 1 of this ESA).

5.4.2 Existing Air Quality and Emissions All Pipeline Loops The Timberwolf and Cranberry sections do not lie within one of Alberta's Airshed Zones (Clean Air Strategic Alliance [CASA] 2009). No similar Airshed zone plan has been developed in BC. Baseline air quality within the Air Quality RSA for each of the proposed pipeline loops is influenced primarily by regional industrial air emission sources, biogenic emissions, and long–range transport of substances emitted from distant sources (Stantec 2011).

Ambient air quality for the three proposed pipelines was assessed using monitoring data collected from three ambient air quality monitoring stations. Stations were chosen based on their proximity and relevancy to the three proposed pipeline loops. These stations included the Fort Nelson Brucker Ranch and Fort Nelson Chalo School monitoring stations in BC and the Henry Pirker monitoring station in AB. Further information regarding the location and monitoring data collected for these stations is provided in Appendix 1 of this ESA. Based on collected monitoring data, the baseline ambient air quality in the region is good with rare occurrences of degraded air quality. Ambient concentrations were measured as below BC and Alberta ambient air quality guidelines and objectives at least 99 percent of the time. Table 5.7 details existing sources of CAC emissions within the Air Quality RSA for the three proposed pipeline loops.

TABLE 5.7

CAC EMISSIONS IN THE AIR QUALITY RSA FOR THE PROJECT

Emissions (tonnes/year)a, b

Category/ Sector SO2 NOx CO PM2.5 PM10 KYKLO CREEK SECTION Total Area Sources c,d 0.01 0.03 0.78 0.13 0.14 Total Mobile sources c 0.01 0.78 4.85 0.15 0.15 Total Open Sources c,e 0.00 0.02 1.06 0.14 0.16 Total Point Sources f 223 2,169 493 5.00 5.03 TOTAL 223 2,170 500 5.42 5.48 TIMBERWOLF SECTION Total Area Sources c,d 0.01 0.04 1.05 0.17 0.19 Total Mobile sources c 0.01 1.05 6.50 0.20 0.20 Total Open Sources c,e 0.00 0.03 1.42 0.19 0.21 Total Point Sources f - 177 226 0.67 0.67 TOTAL 0.03 178 235 1.23 1.27 CRANBERRY SECTION Total Area Sources c,d 0.01 0.03 0.81 0.13 0.14 Total Mobile sources c 0.01 0.81 5.05 0.16 0.16 Total Open Sources c,e 0.00 0.02 1.10 0.14 0.17 Total Point Sources f 29.0 1,882 388 8.34 7.26 TOTAL 29.0 1,883 395 8.77 7.72 Source: Stantec 2011 Notes: a Detailed information presented in Appendix 1 of ESA

Page 5-19

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.7 Cont'd

b The sum of values in the table may not equal the total due to rounding c 2000 Air Emissions Inventory Report (BC MOE 2004) d Area Sources = Agriculture, residential wood heating, and other e Open sources = Forest fires, prescribed burning, and road dust f National Pollutant Release Inventory (Environment Canada 2011e)

5.4.3 Local and Regional Meteorological Conditions Environment Canada has three major meteorological stations (Fort Nelson, BC, High Level, Alberta and Peace River, Alberta) with wind data that are applicable to the general area of the Project (Environment Canada 2010a). Wind speed, wind direction and atmospheric turbulence are major climatic elements that influence the dispersion of air emissions (Stantec 2011). Most wind data from Environment Canada are collected by anemometers at 10 m aboveground in open areas. North and south winds are prevalent in Fort Nelson predominantly, while wind in High Level and Peace River predominantly blows to the north and west, respectively.

Additional information related to climatic conditions is summarized in Section 5.1.5 of this ESA.

5.5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions This subsection presents a summary of the findings related to GHG emissions in the Project area. GHG emissions in the Air Quality RSA (see Figure 6.3 of this ESA) are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources of emissions. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to GHG emissions are discussed in Sections 6.2.5 of this ESA.

The largest contributing GHG in Canada is CO2, which is released as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion. Approximately 80% of Canada's total national GHGs are associated with the production or consumption of fossil fuels (Environment Canada 2010c). In Alberta and, to a lesser extent, BC, the oil and gas sector substantially contributes to overall increases in provincial GHG emissions (AENV 2008, BC MOE 2010c). However, GHG emissions associated with oil and gas transportation activities are relatively minor and mainly associated with stationary combustion devices used to transport the products (e.g., compressor stations).

The NRRM is committed to reducing GHG emissions and has created a GHG Action Plan. The objective of this GHG Action Plan is to align with the Province of BC's target of a 33% reduction in 2007 GHG emissions by 2020. Of the 2007 emissions, transportation is the largest emissions sector with an estimated total of 43,196 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Idling of passenger vehicles has been identified as a contributing factor to the NRRM community GHG emission inventory. The NRRM may pressure local industries to consult with their employees on this issue and begin more stringent monitoring of company fuel cards (NRRM 2010a).

The Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) and AENV are working together on a number of initiatives towards safeguarding the environment. Mackenzie County is looking at building its own ethanol plant to help reduce GHG emissions from municipally owned vehicles. Mackenzie County also has a policy that bans styrofoam and plastic dishes and utensils (AAMDC and AENV 2009). Policies related to reducing GHG emissions have not been identified in the County of Northern Lights of Clear Hills County.

5.5.1 Characterization of Project-Related GHG Emissions The Project does not involve the construction and operation of any transport devices; therefore, the primary sources of GHG emissions during construction will be from land clearing and open burning activities as well as from fuel combustion related to vehicle and equipment operation. Additionally, the removal of trees along the proposed rights-of-way will adversely affect the localized sequestration of carbon dioxide by the forest and any subsequent burning of vegetation debris will release GHGs into the

Page 5-20

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 atmosphere. During operation, GHG emissions will be primarily resultant of helicopter use for maintenance and inspection purposes. GHG emissions as a result of the Project are very small and do not contribute substantially to provincial or national GHG emission totals (see Appendix 1 of this ESA).

5.5.2 Existing GHG Emissions NRCan has developed annual national and provincial GHG emission inventories detailing actual GHG emission from 1990 through to present and estimated GHG emissions to 2015 (Table 5.9). These GHG emission inventories have been used to assess Project associated GHGs. See Section 6.2.5 and Appendix 1 of this ESA for further details on the assessment of Project associated GHG emissions.

TABLE 5.8

NATIONAL AND PROVINCIAL GHG EMISSIONS

Estimated Total GHG Emissions (t/y CO2e) Year Canadian Total BC + Territories Total Alberta Total 2015 813,000,000 78,000,000 254,000,000 2010 764,000,000 73,000,000 233,000,000 2005 728,000,000 68,000 222,000,000 2000 694,000,000 64,000,000 221,000,000 1995 653,000,000 63,000,000 197,000,000 1990 601,000,000 53,000,000 168,000,000 Notes: Data for 2000 and beyond are projections Data for BC includes the Territories (i.e., Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut) Sources: NRCan (2005a,b,c)

5.6 Acoustic Environment This subsection presents a summary of the findings related to ambient noise and the acoustic environment in the Acoustic Environment LSA (see Figure 6.4). Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to acoustic environment are discussed in Section 6.2.6 of this ESA.

5.6.1 Existing Ambient Noise and Noise Receptors All Pipeline Loops Due to the remoteness of the area, ambient noise in the Project area is minimal, primarily caused by local and industrial vehicle traffic and industrial maintenance activities. It is unlikely that there will be any human receptors to nuisance noise emissions. An incremental increase in noise levels will occur during construction.

With the exception of in-line inspection and general maintenance activities, noise generated by the operation of the Project is expected to be undetectable and will not contribute to ambient noise levels.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) There are no local by-laws relating to noise within the Etsho Resource Management Zone (RMZ) of the Fort Nelson LRMP (BC ILMB 1997). The NRRM has a noise control bylaw which states that no person shall make or cause to be made anywhere in the municipality, any noise or sound which disturbs or tends to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of any other person. These regulations do not apply to persons carrying on construction works between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm on any day (NRRM 2009).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Mackenzie County has a local noise bylaw which pertains to the portion of the proposed pipeline loop located in Mackenzie County. The bylaw prohibits unreasonable noise created by off-highway vehicles as

Page 5-21

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 well as the use of industrial equipment and off-highway vehicles within residential districts between 11 pm and 7 am (Mackenzie County 2010). There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in the County of Northern Lights.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in Clear Hills County.

5.7 Fish and Fish Habitat This subsection presents a summary of the findings related to fish and fish habitat and fish species of concern in the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA (Figure 6.2) and potential watercourse crossings. Documented fish spawning and rearing habitat potential is provided for potential watercourse crossings identified along the three proposed pipeline loops on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 9 of this ESA). Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to fish and fish habitat are discussed in Section 6.2.7 of this ESA.

5.7.1 Watercourse Crossing Classification Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Two watercourse crossings and two fish-bearing drainages have been identified along the Kyklo Creek Section (Table 5.9). The two watercourse crossings are Kyklo Creek and an unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek. The two fish-bearing drainage crossings are drainages that flow into Kyklo Creek and the Kotcho River. Kyklo Creek flows east towards the Kotcho River which eventually flows into the Hay River in BC. None of the proposed crossings are influenced by beaver activity.

The unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek crossing at KPK 1.7 is located approximately 5 km upstream from the unnamed tributary's confluence with Kyklo Creek. The unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek crossing at KPK 1.7 is a fish-bearing S3 stream (i.e., bankfull width between 1.5 m and 5 m). The Kyklo Creek crossing is approximately 10 km upstream from Kyklo Creek's confluence with the Kotcho River. Kyklo Creek is a fish bearing S2 stream (i.e., bankfull width between 5 m and 20 m). The fish-bearing drainage to Kyklo Creek crossing at KPK 7.4 and the fish-bearing drainage to Kotcho River crossing at KPK 26.5 lack defined bed and banks and, therefore, do not fall under BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations' (MFLNRO's) stream classification. Based on the presence of spring/summer spawning species (e.g., finescale dace and brook stickleback), the window of least risk is July 15 to March 31 for all four proposed crossings (BC MWLAP 2004)

An objective of the Fort Nelson LRMP is to conserve and maintain the genetic diversity of wild fish stocks by establishing a catalogue of wild fish stocks and identifying and mapping fish distributions (BC ILMB 1997).

Page 5-22

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011/ 7212/7238

TABLE 5.9

SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE AND FISH-BEARING NON-CLASSIFIED DRAINAGE CROSSINGS ALONG THE HORN RIVER MAINLINE (KYKLO CREEK SECTION)

Fish Species Captured or Recommended Observed During Location of Vehicle/ Instream Functional Mean Open Water Nearest Winter 2009 Contingency Equipment Recommended UTM Work Riparian Riparian Bankfull Assessment Known Beaver Habitat Recommended Pipeline Crossing Vehicle/ Equipment Name, Legal Co-ordinates Stream Window of Management Area Width Width (Previously Fish Activity Investigation Pipeline Crossing Crossing Method Crossing Method Riparian and Bank Site No. Location and KPK 1 (Zone 10) Class2 Least Risk3 Area (m) 2 (m) (m) Documented) 4 Habitat 5 Present Results Method 6 Method (Frozen) (Open Water) Restoration Mitigation WATERCOURSES H(K)-WC1 Unnamed Tributary E: 599490 S3 July 15 to 40 Left: <5 1.8 finescale dace Within the Yes, Dry Isolate if water n/a Snow fill/ice Clear span bridge • Replace salvaged to Kyklo Creek N: 6505942 March 31 Right: <5 (brook stickleback and crossing upstream of present/open cut if bridge strippings to c-013-K/094-I-11 finescale dace right-of-way proposed dry or frozen to facilitate KPK 1.7 captured at confluence and/or ZOI crossing. bottom revegetation. of Metlahdoa Creek Not influencing • Seed with a native and Kyklo Creek grass mixture. approximately 4 km proposed upstream on Kyklo crossing at • Use bank Creek) time of stabilization assessment. measures if appropriate. H(K)-WC2 Kyklo Creek E: 618160 S2 July 15 to 50 Left: 40-50 16.6 trout-perch, longnose Within the Yes, Ice: 0.6 m Isolate if water Trenchless Snow fill/ice Clear span bridge • Follow site-specific a-008-L/094-I-10 N: 6504849 March 31 Right: >50 sucker, finescale dace, crossing upstream Water: 1.0 m present/open cut if bridge reclamation plan. KPK 20.9 flathead chub right-of-way and DO: 3.6 mg/L dry or frozen to (finescale dace and and/or ZOI downstream Flow: Negligible bottom brook stickleback of proposed captured crossing. approximately 22 km Not upstream at influencing confluence of proposed Metlahdoa Creek) crossing at time of assessment. FISH-BEARING NON-CLASSIFIED DRAINAGES H(K)-FD1 Unnamed Drainage E: 604909 n/a July 15 to n/a Left: >50 n/a finescale dace, brook Within the Yes, Ice: 0.4 m Isolate if water n/a Snow fill/ice n/a • Replace salvaged to Kyklo Creek N: 6506505 March 31 Right: >50 stickleback crossing upstream of Water: 0.3 m present/open cut if bridge strippings to a-026-J/094-I-11 (none) right-of-way proposed DO: 2.2 mg/L dry or frozen to facilitate KPK 7.4 and/or ZOI crossing. Flow: Negligible bottom revegetation. Not • Seed with a native influencing grass mixture. proposed crossing at time of assessment. H(K)-FD2 Unnamed Drainage E: 623430 n/a July 15 to n/a Not n/a brook stickleback Within the No Dry/frozen to Isolate if water n/a Snow fill/ice n/a • Replace salvaged to Kotcho River N: 6504264 March 31 recorded (none) crossing bottom present/open cut if bridge strippings to b-100-F/094-I-10 right-of-way dry or frozen to facilitate KPK 26.5 and/or ZOI bottom revegetation. • Seed with a native grass mixture.

Notes: n/a not applicable 1 Kilometer Posts (KPs) may be subject to change and are based on surveys from January 2011. 2 BC MOF 1995. 3 BC MWLAP 2004. 4 BC MOE 2011 and BC Ministry of Natural Resource Operations (MONRO) 2011. 5 Approximate distance to nearest watercourse, or location in the sampled watercourse, known to contain fish. 6 Based on the results of the open water aquatic assessment and winter aquatic habitat investigations, these crossings are considered to have low sensitivity during winter construction if the mitigation and reclamation measures outlined in Section 5.0 of this report are implemented. Therefore, trenched pipeline crossings are acceptable.

Page 5-23

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) There are 14 proposed crossings identified along the Timberwolf Section, including 5 proposed crossings that are not influenced by beavers and 9 proposed crossings that were influenced by beavers (Table 5.10). The five proposed crossings that were not influenced by beavers were identified as watercourses having defined bed and banks. Of the nine proposed crossings that were influenced by beavers, five were identified as watercourses and the remaining four were identified as fish-bearing drainages lacking defined bed and banks.

The five watercourses that are not influenced by beavers include the Hay River, Little Buffalo River, an unnamed tributary to Bivouac Creek at KPT 26.8, Chasm Creek and an unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 39.6.

The remaining nine proposed crossings influenced by beavers include three named crossings, Bivouac Creek (which has no defined channel), Beaverskin Creek and Snowfall Creek (which has no defined channel) and six unnamed tributaries which flow into the Hay River, Little Buffalo River, Chasm Creek and Beaverskin Creek. The unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 10.0 and the unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 33.1 also have no defined channels.

The Hay River crossing is located in Alberta approximately 5 km upstream from the Alberta/BC border. The Hay River then flows into BC and heads northeast back into Alberta. The Little Buffalo River and Bivouac Creek are located in the Hay River Basin. Bivouac Creek is a tributary to the Little Buffalo River which flows across the provincial border into the Hay River in BC.

The proposed crossings on Chasm, Beaverskin and Snowfall creeks are located in the Fontas River sub-basin in Alberta. Beaverskin Creek is a tributary to Chasm Creek which flows across the provincial border to its confluence with the Fontas River in BC. Snowfall Creek also flows across the provincial border to its confluence with the Fontas River in BC. The Fontas River then flows west to its confluence with the Fort Nelson River in BC.

The classifications and accompanying restricted activity periods (RAPs) for the watercourses crossed by this proposed pipeline loop were determined according to the Code of Practice Peace River Management Area Map (AENV 2006). Of the 10 watercourses identified as having defined bed and banks, 5 are mapped Class C watercourses: the Hay River; Little Buffalo River; Chasm Creek; unnamed tributary to Little Buffalo River at KPT 17.3; and Beaverskin Creek. The remaining five are unmapped Class C watercourses. All 10 of the watercourses have Restricted Activity Periods (RAPs) from April 16 to July 15. The remaining four fish-bearing drainages do not fall under the codes of practice (COPs) and, therefore, do not have a classification; however, they have RAPs from April 16 to July 15 since spring spawning fish (e.g., finescale dace and brook stickleback) were present.

There are no specific objectives related to fish outlined in the Mackenzie County MDP (Mackenzie County MDP 2009). All applications for development in the County of Northern Lights will be evaluated according to the potential for loss of fish habitat (County of Northern Lights 2010).

Page 5-24

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.10

SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE AND BEAVER DAM COMPLEX CROSSINGS ALONG THE NORTHWEST MAINLINE (TIMBERWOLF SECTION)

Recommended Recommended Fish Species Captured Vehicle/ Vehicle/ UTM or Observed During Winter 2011 Recommended Contingency Equipment Equipment Name, Legal Co-ordinates AENV Class Open Water Assessment Beaver Habitat Pipeline Pipeline Crossing Crossing Location (W6M), (NAD 83, and Restricted Mean Channel (Previously Activity Investigation Crossing Crossing Method (Open Method Riparian and Bank Site No. KPT 1 Zone 11) Activity Period 2 Morphology (m) Documented) 3 Present Results Method Method 4 Water) (Frozen) Restoration Mitigation Comments WATERCOURSES N(T)-WC1 Hay River E: 329382 Mapped Class C Not collected in fall No sampling conducted - Not collected Ice: 0.5 m Trenchless Isolate if water Clear span Snow fill/ice • Follow site-specific Weather conditions 5-22-108-12 N: 6475671 April 16 to July 15 2010, see see comments in fall 2010, Water: 0.3 m present/open bridge bridge reclamation plan if prevented open KPT 5.4 comments (walleye, emerald shiner, see comments DO: 12.1 mg/L cut if dry or contingency pipeline water assessment - finescale dace, brook Flow: 0.5 m³/s frozen to method used data to be collected stickleback, trout-perch, bottom during spring 2011. white sucker at crossing) N(T)-WC2 Little Buffalo River E: 328472 Mapped Class C Bankfull: 11.4 No fish captured or No Ice: 0.4 m Isolate if water n/a Clear span Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged 6-33-106-12 N: 6459768 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: 11.4 observed (longnose Water: 1.0 m present/open cut bridge bridge strippings to facilitate KPT 21.5 Depth: 1.4 sucker, lake chub at DO: 10.8 mg/L if dry or frozen to revegetation. crossing) Flow: 0.09 m³/s bottom • Seed with a native grass mixture. • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. N(T)-WC3 Unnamed tributary E: 326867 Unmapped Class C Bankfull: 1.4 Brook stickleback No Frozen to bottom Isolate if water n/a Clear span Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged to Bivouac Creek N: 6455015 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: 1.1 (none at crossing) present/open cut bridge bridge strippings to facilitate 10-17-106-12 Depth: 0.2 if dry or frozen to revegetation.

KPT 26.8 bottom • Seed with a native grass mixture. • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. N(T)-WC4 Chasm Creek E: 324909 Mapped Class C Bankfull: 3.6 No fish captured or Yes, 50 m Ice: 0.03 m Isolate if water n/a Clear span Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged Defined channel with 3-7-106-12 N: 6452979 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: 3.5 observed (brook upstream. Not Water: 0.4 m present/open cut bridge bridge strippings to facilitate boulder substrate at KPT 29.7 Depth: 0.6 stickleback, lake chub, influencing DO: 8.3 mg/L if dry or frozen to revegetation. right-of-way. longnose sucker at proposed Flow: Negligible bottom • Seed with a native grass crossing) crossing mixture. • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. N(T)-WC5 Unnamed tributary E: 324260 Unmapped Class C Bankfull: 0.9 No fish captured or Yes, 250 m Frozen to bottom Isolate if water n/a Clear span Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged Small headwater to Beaverskin Creek N: 6443057 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: 0.7 observed (none at downstream. present/open cut bridge bridge strippings to facilitate channel with step 3-7-105-12 Depth: 0.3 crossing) Not influencing if dry or frozen to revegetation. barriers. KPT 39.6 proposed bottom • Seed with a native grass crossing. mixture. • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. BEAVER DAM COMPLEXES N(T)-BP1 Unnamed tributary E: 329330 n/a - no defined Bankfull: see Finescale dace Yes, upstream Frozen to bottom Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged No defined channel to Hay River N: 6471103 channel comments (none at crossing) and partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate Approximately 800 m 11-3-108-12 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: see downstream. water revegetation. wet area. KPT 10.0 comments Influencing present/open cut • Seed with a native grass Depth: n/r proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom N(T)-BP2 Unnamed tributary E: 329336 Unmapped Class C Bankfull: see Finescale dace Yes, upstream Ice: 0.4 m Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged Unable to determine to Hay River N: 6468218 April 16 to July 15 comments (none at crossing) and Water: 0.5 m partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate native channel. 11-27-107-12 Wetted: 40 downstream. DO: 1.1 mg/L water revegetation. KPT 12.9 Depth: n/r Influencing Flow: Negligible present/open cut • Seed with a native grass proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. N(T)-BP3 Unnamed tributary E: 329240 Mapped Class C Bankfull: see Finescale dace, brook Yes, upstream Frozen to bottom Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged Native channel is to Little Buffalo River N: 6463854 April 16 to July 15 comments stickleback and partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate 10 m. 3-15-107-12 Wetted: 143 (finescale dace, brook downstream. water revegetation. KPT 17.3 Depth: n/r stickleback at crossing) Influencing present/open cut • Seed with a native grass proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate.

Page 5-25

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.10 Cont'd

Recommended Recommended Fish Species Captured Vehicle/ Vehicle/ UTM or Observed During Winter 2011 Recommended Contingency Equipment Equipment Name, Legal Co-ordinates AENV Class Open Water Assessment Beaver Habitat Pipeline Pipeline Crossing Crossing Location (W6M), (NAD 83, and Restricted Mean Channel (Previously Activity Investigation Crossing Crossing Method (Open Method Riparian and Bank Site No. KPT 1 Zone 11) Activity Period 2 Morphology (m) Documented) 3 Present Results Method Method 4 Water) (Frozen) Restoration Mitigation Comments N(T)-BP4 Bivouac Creek E: 327678 n/a - no defined Bankfull: see Brook stickleback, Yes, upstream Ice: 0.4 m Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged No defined channel. 12-21-106-12 N: 6456662 channel comments finescale dace (none at and Water: 0.3 m partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate KPT 24.9 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: 187 crossing) downstream. DO: 1.5 mg/L water revegetation. Depth: n/r Influencing Flow: Negligible present/open cut • Seed with a native grass proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom N(T)-BP5 Unnamed tributary E: 324737 Unmapped Class C Bankfull: see Finescale dace, brook Yes, upstream Ice: 0.5 m Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged Unable to determine to Chasm Creek N: 6452029 April 16 to July 15 comments stickleback (none at and Water: 0.4 m partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate native channel. 11-6-106-12 Wetted: 35 crossing) downstream. DO: 0.5 mg/L water revegetation. KPT 30.6 Depth: n/r Influencing Flow: Negligible present/open cut • Seed with a native grass proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. N(T)-BP6 Unnamed tributary E: 324528 n/a - no defined Bankfull: see Finescale dace Yes, upstream Frozen to bottom Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged No defined channel. to Beaverskin Creek N: 6449627 channel comments (none at crossing) and partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate Multiple wet areas. 4-31-105-12 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: see downstream. water revegetation. KPT 33.1 comments Influencing present/open cut • Seed with a native grass Depth: 0.5 proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom N(T)-BP7 Beaverskin Creek E: 324467 Mapped Class C Bankfull: 9.1 No fish captured or Yes, upstream Ice: 0.3 m Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged Native channel is 3-30-105-12 N: 6447821 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: 8.6 observed (white sucker, and Water: 0.5 m partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate 7 m to 12 m. Multiple KPT 34.9 Depth: 0.4 finescale dace at crossing) downstream. DO: 10.1 mg/L water revegetation. wet areas. Influencing Flow: Negligible present/open cut • Seed with a native grass proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. N(T)-BP8 Unnamed tributary E: 324391 Unmapped Class C Bankfull: 1.2 Brook stickleback Yes, upstream Dry Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged Native channel is to Beaverskin Creek N: 6446278 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: 1.2 (none at crossing) and partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate 1.2 m. Beaver run 3-19-105-12 Depth: 0.7 downstream. water revegetation. between dams. KPT 36.4 Influencing present/open cut • Seed with a native grass proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. N(T)-BP9 Snowfall Creek E: 323945 n/a - no defined Bankfull: see Brook stickleback, Yes, upstream Ice: 0.5 m Isolate and/or n/a n/a Snow fill/ice • Replace salvaged No defined channel. 14-18-104-12 N: 6436371 channel comments finescale dace (white and Water: 0.9 m partial isolation if bridge strippings to facilitate KPT 46.0 April 16 to July 15 Wetted: 22 sucker, finescale dace at downstream. DO: 0.7 mg/L water revegetation. Depth: n/r crossing) Influencing Flow: 0.1 m³/s present/open cut • Seed with a native grass proposed if dry or frozen to mixture. crossing. bottom Notes: n/a (not applicable), n/r (not recorded) 1 Kilometer Posts (KPT) may be subject to change and are based on surveys from January 2011. 2 Determined from the AENV Code of Practice Management Area Map for Peace River (AENV 2006). 3 Results from the Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) (2011). 4 Trenchless pipeline crossing method was recommended to reduce the potential to negatively impact the productive capacity of the aquatic environment at Hay River. Trenched pipeline crossing methods were recommended for the remaining crossings based on the results of the open water aquatic assessment and winter aquatic habitat investigations. These crossings were considered to have low sensitivity during winter construction if the mitigation and reclamation measures outlined in Section 5.0 of this report are implemented. Therefore, trenched pipeline crossings are acceptable.

Page 5-26

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Three watercourses and one fish-bearing drainage have been identified along the Cranberry Section (see Table 5.11). None of the proposed crossings were influenced by beaver activity at the time of the open water assessments.

The proposed watercourse crossings include an unnamed tributary to Midget Creek at KPC 2.4, as well as Sloat Creek and an unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River at KPC 26.4. The unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River is also locally known as Starvation Creek. In addition there is a proposed crossing on the fish-bearing drainage at KPC 6.4 is located in a low area before the headwaters of Midget Creek.

The unnamed tributary to Midget Creek at KPC 2.4 and the fish-bearing drainage at KPC 6.4 near the headwaters of Midget Creek are located in the Notikewin River sub-basin. Midget Creek flows for approximately 20 km to its confluence with the Meikle River which is a direct tributary to the Notikewin River. This proposed pipeline loop crosses the unnamed tributary to Midget Creek approximately 6 km upstream from the confluence of the unnamed tributary with Midget Creek.

Sloat Creek and the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River are direct tributaries to the Chinchaga River. This proposed pipeline loop crosses Sloat Creek and the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River at KPC 26.4 approximately 30 km and 7 km upstream, respectively, from their confluences with the Chinchaga River.

The classifications and accompanying RAPs for the watercourses crossed by this proposed pipeline loop were determined according to the Code of Practice Peace River Management Area Map (AENV 2006). Sloat Creek and the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River are mapped Class C watercourses with RAPs from April 16 to July 15. The unnamed tributary to Midget Creek is an unmapped Class C watercourse with a RAP from April 16 to July 15. The fish-bearing drainage lacks defined bed and banks and, therefore, does not have a watercourse classification. However, it has a RAP from April 16 to July 15 since spring spawning fish species (i.e., brook stickleback) may be present.

No specific objectives related to fish are outlined in the Clear Hills County MDP (Clear Hills County 1999).

Page 5-27

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.11

SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE AND FISH-BEARING DRAINAGE CROSSINGS ALONG THE TANGHE CREEK LATERAL LOOP NO. 2 (CRANBERRY SECTION)

Recommended Fish Captured or Recommended Vehicle/ UTM Class and Observed During Open Winter 2011 Vehicle/ Equipment Name, Legal Co-ordinates Restricted Water Assessment Beaver Habitat Recommended Contingency Equipment Crossing Location (W6M) and (NAD 83, Activity Mean Channel (Previously Activity Investigation Pipeline Crossing Pipeline Crossing Crossing Method (Open Riparian and Bank Site No. KPC 1 Zone 11) Period 2 Morphology (m) Documented) 3 Present Results Method 4 Method Method (Frozen) Water) Restoration Mitigation Comments WATERCOURSES T(C)-WC1 Unnamed Tributary to E: 398473 Unmapped Bankfull: 1.1 No fish captured or No Dry Isolate if water n/a Snow fill/ice Clear span bridge • Replace salvaged Small channel with Midget Creek N: 6356710 Class C Wetted: 0.9 observed (none at present/open cut if bridge strippings to facilitate abundant overhanging and 7-23-96-5 April 16 to Depth: 0.2 proposed crossing) dry or frozen to revegetation. in stream vegetation and

KPC 2.4 July 15 bottom • Seed with a native debris, limited flow and grass mixture. depth, poor fish potential, likely no passage • Use bank stabilization upstream. measures if appropriate. T(C)-WC2 Sloat Creek E: 383412 Mapped Bankfull: 1.2 No fish captured or No Frozen to Isolate if water n/a Snow fill/ice Clear span bridge • Replace salvaged Small perennial channel, 6-17-96-6 N: 6355410 Class C Wetted: 1.2 observed (none at bottom present/open cut if bridge strippings to facilitate headwater watercourse, KPC 17.9 April 16 to Depth: 0.1 proposed crossing) dry or frozen to revegetation. shallow water depth July 15 bottom • Seed with a native throughout. grass mixture. • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. T(C)-WC3 Unnamed tributary to E: 375584 Mapped Bankfull: 7.9 Brook stickleback (Arctic No Frozen to Isolate if water n/a Clear span Clear span bridge • Replace salvaged Right bank vertical and Chinchaga River N: 6357956 Class C Wetted: 3.8 grayling, longnose sucker bottom present/open cut if bridge strippings to facilitate steep within existing right- 10-21-96-7 April 16 to Depth: 0.3 at proposed crossing) dry or frozen to revegetation. of-way, previous crossing KPC 26.4 July 15 bottom • Seed with a native used crib wall as right grass mixture. bank stabilization. • Use bank stabilization measures if appropriate. FISH-BEARING DRAINAGE T(C)-FD1 Unnamed drainage E: 394666 n/a Bankfull: n/a No fish captured or Yes, beaver Frozen to Isolate if water n/a Snow fill/ice n/a • Replace salvaged Several small 3-21-96-5 N: 6356496 April 16 to Wetted: see comments observed (none at pond 50 m bottom at present/open cut if bridge strippings to facilitate drainages/wet areas at KPC 6.4 July 15 Depth: not recorded proposed crossing) to 100 m crossing. dry or frozen to revegetation. proposed right-of-way that downstream. Dissolved bottom • Seed with a native feed into a beaver dam Not oxygen in grass mixture. complex 50 m to 100 m influencing beaver pond downstream. Large beaver proposed was 5.0 mg/L. pond with lodge, crossing. approximately 87 m across at existing right-of- way. Notes: n/a (not applicable) 1 Kilometer Posts (KPC) may be subject to change and are based on surveys from January 2011. 2 Determined from the AENV Code of Practice Management Area Map for Peace River (AENV 2006). 3 Results from FWMIS (2011). 4 Based on the results of the open water aquatic assessment and winter aquatic habitat investigations, these crossings are considered to have low sensitivity during winter construction if the mitigation and reclamation measures outlined in Section 5.0 of this report are implemented. Therefore, trenched pipeline crossings are acceptable.

Page 5-28

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.7.2 Background Species Information Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section lies in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group in northeast BC. The Kotcho Lake Watershed Group flows into the Hay River sub-basin. This proposed pipeline loop crosses Kyklo Creek, several of its tributaries and tributaries to Kotcho River. Kyklo Creek flows east into the Kotcho River, which drains into the Hay River.

The fish community in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group is a mixed assemblage containing both coldwater (e.g., salmonids) and coolwater (e.g., percids and esocids) species. Table 5.12 provides a list of the fish species expected to occur in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group.

TABLE 5.12

FISH SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE KOTCHO LAKE WATERSHED GROUP IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Common Name Spawning Provincial COSEWIC-Listed (Species Code)1 Scientific Name Season2 Status3 Species4 SPORTFISH Arctic grayling (GR) Thymallus arcticus spring Yellow not listed burbot (BB) Lota lota winter/spring Yellow not listed northern pike (NP) Esox lucius spring Yellow not listed walleye (WP) Sander vitreus spring Yellow not listed NON-SPORTFISH trout-perch (TP) Percopsis omiscomaycus spring/summer Yellow not listed longnose sucker (LSU) Catostomus catostomus spring Yellow not listed white sucker (WSU) Catostomus commersoni spring Yellow not listed brook stickleback (BSB) Culaea inconstans spring/summer Yellow not listed lake chub (LKC) Couesius plumbeus spring Yellow not listed finescale dace (FDC) Phoxinus neogaeus spring/summer undetermined not listed Sources: 1 McPhail 2007, Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC 2011, BC MOE 2011a, BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) 2011 2 McPhail 2007 3 BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) 2011 4 Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2011a

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section lies in the Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin in northwest Alberta. This proposed pipeline loop crosses the Hay River and several of its tributaries in Alberta near the Alberta/BC border. The Hay River originates in Alberta then flows through BC and back to Alberta to the Mackenzie River in the Northwest Territories. This proposed pipeline loop also crosses several tributaries to the Fontas River in Alberta. The Fontas River originates in Alberta from several tributaries and flows west into northeast BC to its confluence with the Fort Nelson River.

The fish communities in the Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin are mixed assemblages containing both coldwater (e.g., salmonids) and coolwater (e.g., percids and esocids) species. Table 5.13 provides a list of the fish species expected to occur in the Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin.

Page 5-29

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.13

FISH SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE HAY RIVER BASIN AND FONTAS RIVER SUB-BASIN IN ALBERTA

Spawning COSEWIC Common Name1 Scientific Name Season2 Provincial Listing3 Listed Species4 SPORTFISH Arctic grayling (ARGR) Thymallus arcticus spring sensitive not listed burbot (BURB) Lota lota winter secure not listed northern pike (NRPK) Esox lucius spring secure not listed walleye (WALL) Sander vitreus spring secure not listed goldeye (GOLD) Hiodon alosoides spring secure not listed NON-SPORTFISH longnose sucker (LNSC) Catostomus catostomus spring secure not listed white sucker (WHSC) Catostomus commersoni spring secure not listed lake chub (LKCH) Couesius plumbeus spring secure not listed longnose dace (LNDC) Rhinichthys cataractae spring secure not listed finescale dace (FNDC) Phoxinus neogaeus spring secure not listed pearl dace (PRDC) Margariscus margarita spring undetermined not listed trout-perch (TRPR) Percopsis omiscomaycus spring - summer secure not listed slimy sculpin (SLSC) Cottus cognatus spring secure not listed spoonhead sculpin (SPSC) Cottus ricei spring may be at risk not at risk5 brook stickleback (BRST) Culaea inconstans spring secure not listed Sources: 1 Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) 2011, Nelson and Paetz 1992, McPhail 2007, Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC 2011, BC MOE 2011a, BC MFLNRO 2011 2 Nelson and Paetz 1992 3 ASRD 2005a 4 COSEWIC 2011a Note: 5 Spoonhead sculpin have been evaluated by COSEWIC and were found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section is located in the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins. The Chinchaga and Notikewin rivers are tributaries to the Hay and Peace rivers, respectively. The Chinchaga River originates in northeast BC from several lakes and flows northeast into Alberta to its confluence with the Hay River. The portion of this proposed pipeline loop in the Chinchaga River sub-basin crosses direct tributaries to the Chinchaga River. The Notikewin River originates in northwest Alberta from several tributaries and flows northeast to its confluence with the Peace River. The portion of this proposed pipeline loop in the Notikewin River sub-basin crosses tributaries to the Meikle River, which is a direct tributary to the Notikewin River.

The fish community in the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins are mixed assemblages containing both coldwater (e.g., salmonids) and coolwater (e.g., percids and esocids) species. Table 5.14 provides a list of the fish species expected to occur in the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins.

TABLE 5.14

FISH SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE CHINCHAGA RIVER AND NOTIKEWIN RIVER SUB-BASINS IN ALBERTA

Spawning COSEWIC Common Name1 Scientific Name Season2 Provincial Listing3 Listed Species4 SPORTFISH Arctic grayling (ARGR) Thymallus arcticus spring sensitive not listed rainbow trout (RNTR) Oncorhynchus mykiss spring secure not listed (Introduced populations) 5 lake whitefish (LKWH) 5 Coregonus clupeaformis fall-winter secure not listed mountain whitefish (MNWH) 5 Prosopium williamsoni fall secure not listed

Page 5-30

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.14 Cont'd

Spawning COSEWIC Common Name1 Scientific Name Season2 Provincial Listing3 Listed Species4 burbot (BURB) Lota lota winter secure not listed northern pike (NRPK) Esox lucius spring secure not listed yellow perch (YLPR) 5 Perca flavescens spring secure not listed walleye (WALL) Sander vitreus spring secure not listed goldeye (GOLD) Hiodon alosoides spring secure not listed NON-SPORTFISH longnose sucker (LNSC) Catostomus catostomus spring secure not listed white sucker (WHSC) Catostomus commersoni spring secure not listed lake chub (LKCH) Couesius plumbeus spring secure not listed longnose dace (LNDC) Rhinichthys cataractae spring secure not listed finescale dace (FNDC) Phoxinus neogaeus spring secure not listed pearl dace (PRDC) Margariscus margarita spring undetermined not listed emerald shiner (EMSH) Notropis atherinoides summer secure not listed spottail shiner (SPSH) Notropis hudsonius summer secure not listed trout-perch (TRPR) Percopsis omiscomaycus spring - summer secure not listed slimy sculpin (SLSC) Cottus cognatus spring secure not listed spoonhead sculpin (SPSC) Cottus ricei spring may be at risk not at risk6 brook stickleback (BRST) Culaea inconstans spring secure not listed Sources: 1 FWMIS 2011, Nelson and Paetz 1992, McPhail 2007 2 Nelson and Paetz 1992 3 ASRD 2005a 4 COSEWIC 2011a Notes: 5 Rainbow trout, lake whitefish, mountain whitefish and yellow perch may occur in the Notikewin River sub-basin and do not occur in the Chinchaga River sub-basin. 6 Spoonhead sculpin have been evaluated by COSEWIC and were found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

5.7.3 Fish Species of Concern Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) No fish species at risk listed by COSEWIC are known to occur in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group (COSEWIC 2011a). All fish species present in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group are Yellow-listed, meaning they are 'apparently secure' (BC CDC 2011). Arctic grayling populations are especially sensitive to habitat degradation and angler overharvest (McPhail 2007). However, BC does not have a management plan for Arctic grayling populations in the Kotcho Lake Watershed Group (Anderson pers. comm.).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) No fish species at risk listed by COSEWIC are known to occur in the Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin (COSEWIC 2011a). However, Arctic grayling populations in Alberta are high priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2011b).

Arctic grayling, listed as 'sensitive' in Alberta, are found in the Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin (ASRD 2005a). Alberta has implemented a management and recovery plan for Arctic grayling (Berry 1998). Spoonhead sculpin are listed in Alberta as 'may be at risk' since existing data on the status of populations across the province is currently insufficient to designate the species as 'secure' (Clayton pers. comm.). Spoonhead sculpin are primarily found in large rivers and coldwater streams. Alberta considers northern pike and walleye as 'secure'; however, both species have experienced severe population declines across most of their range and the province has implemented management and recovery plans (Berry 1995, 1999).

Page 5-31

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) No fish species at risk listed by the COSEWIC are known to occur in the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins (COSEWIC 2011a). However, Arctic grayling populations in Alberta are high priority candidates for a detailed status assessment by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2011b).

Arctic grayling, spoonhead sculpin, northern pike and walleye occur in the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins in Alberta along this proposed pipeline loop. Brief discussions of these species' provincial status and management of these species are described above in the Timberwolf Section.

5.7.4 Important Habitat for Fish Species of Concern and Sportfish Arctic grayling, northern pike and walleye may occur in Kotcho Lake Watershed Group along the Kyklo Creek Section, Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin along the Timberwolf Section and the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins along the Cranberry Section. The following paragraphs provide background information on these species.

Arctic grayling are a coldwater salmonid species. They occupy boreal and foothills rivers and streams, and occasionally small lakes. Arctic grayling spawn in the spring once water temperatures reach 5°C to 10°C. Unlike many other salmonids, Arctic grayling are broadcast spawners and do not construct redds. They are confined to cold and coolwater streams, rivers and lakes. Population declines, particularly in the southern portions of their range in Alberta, are often attributed to pollution, habitat degradation, fragmentation, increasing water temperatures and overharvest by anglers (Berry 1998, ASRD 2005b).

Northern pike are a coolwater species and its habitat is usually warm, slow, heavily vegetated rivers or the weedy bays of lakes. They spawn in the spring immediately after the ice melts. The breeding grounds include areas that flood only in the spring and early summer, and may be dry the remainder of the year. During spawning, they swim through the vegetated areas of shallow water and the eggs are scattered at random and attach to the vegetation. The eggs hatch in approximately 12 to 14 days and the young remain attached to the vegetation for 6 to 10 days. The young remain in the shallow spawning areas for several weeks after hatching. Young pike feed on larger zooplankton and immature aquatic insects until they reach about 5 cm in length, when fish becomes their main diet. Typically, adult northern pike do not migrate far from their spawning grounds. Angler overharvest and habitat degradation are commonly cited in management plans as key factors that have led to the decline of this species.

Walleye are a coolwater species that prefers turbid waters in either large, shallow lakes or rivers, provided they are deep or turbid enough to give shelter in daylight. Since their eyes are very sensitive to bright light, walleye often use sunken trees, boulders, weed beds or thick layers of ice and snow as a shield from the sun. Walleye spawn in the spring or early summer, depending on latitude and water temperature. Adults migrate to the rocky areas in white water below impassable falls and dams in rivers, or boulder to coarse-gravel shoals of lakes. Angler overharvest and habitat degradation are commonly cited in management plans as key factors that have led to the decline of this species.

Spoonhead sculpin may occur in the Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin along the Timberwolf Section and the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins along the Cranberry Section. Spoonhead sculpin are most abundant in rivers and streams in the foothills and adjacent plains (Nelson and Paetz 1992). They are bottom feeders and prefer streambeds that are comprised of boulders, cobbles and large gravels. Spawning takes place on rocks usually in April and May. Since spoonhead sculpin are bottom feeders and often occur in large rivers, they are difficult to capture and study. Therefore, basic inventory information on spoonhead sculpin population trends in Alberta is lacking (Clayton pers. comm.).

5.7.5 Summary of Field Results The aquatic assessment in Appendix 2 of this ESA was completed in order to document baseline fish and fish habitat information at each proposed crossing. Information will be provided to DFO to assist with any case-specific reviews of the project they may need to conduct. The aquatic assessment satisfies the requirements of the BC Water Act and clause (a) in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the AENV Code of Practice

Page 5-32

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (AENV 2000a) and Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (AENV 2000b).

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Open water aquatic assessments were conducted from June 7 to 16, 2009 and second season sampling was conducted from October 26 and 27, 2010 along the Kyklo Creek Section. Winter aquatic habitat investigations were also conducted from March 13 to 15, 2009 along this proposed pipeline loop.

All drainages lacking defined bed and banks (as determined by the qualified environmental professional [QEP]) along this proposed pipeline loop were also visited. Aquatic habitat assessment and fish inventories were conducted at the drainage crossings if the QEP believed fish and fish habitat may be present. Drainages that were visited and had no fish habitat potential were photo documented and their locations (UTM co-ordinates) were recorded. Drainages with beaver activity were also noted.

During the open water assessments, water was present at all four of the proposed crossings along this pipeline loop. The unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek at KPK 1.7 and Kyklo Creek had mean bankfull widths of 1.8 m and 16.6 m, respectively. Wetted widths of the two fish-bearing drainages were not recorded during the open water assessments since there were multiple areas of open water interspersed with vegetation. The water depth at one of the two fish-bearing drainages was unable to be determined during the open water assessments since substrates were too soft for the field crews to wade.

Beaver activity was present on three of the four proposed crossings (unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek at KPK 1.7, Kyklo Creek and fish-bearing drainage to Kyklo Creek at KPK 7.4); however, the crossings were not influenced by the beaver activity at the time of the open water assessment. No beaver activity was present on the remaining fish-bearing drainage to the Kotcho River at KPK 26.5.

During the winter aquatic habitat investigations, ice and water were present at two of the four proposed crossings, Kyklo Creek and fish-bearing drainage to Kyklo Creek at KPK 7.4. The remaining two proposed crossings, unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek at KPK 1.7 and fish-bearing drainage to the Kotcho River at KPK 26.5, were dry or frozen to the bottom at the time of the winter aquatic habitat investigations.

The CCME (2007) has a guideline for the protection of aquatic life for pH ranges from 6.5 to 9.0. During the open water assessment, the pH levels were within the preferred range for the protection of aquatic life at all four sites (Table 6 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). During the winter aquatic habitat investigations, where water was present, the pH level at Kyklo Creek was within the preferred range and the fish-bearing drainage to Kyklo Creek at KPK 7.4 was below the preferred range (Table 6 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). The two remaining crossings were dry or frozen to the bottom.

The CCME (2007) guideline for dissolved oxygen for coldwater species (e.g., salmonids) is 9.5 mg/L in early life stages and 6.5 mg/L in other life stages, while for coolwater species (e.g., esocids and percids) the guideline is 6.0 mg/L in early life stages and 5.5 mg/L in other life stages (CCME 2007). However, some species (e.g., cyprinid and stickleback species) found in northern climates can tolerate and survive even lower dissolved oxygen levels (Barton and Taylor 1996). Dissolved oxygen levels were sufficient for coolwater species during the open water assessments at the unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek at KPK 1.7 and Kyklo Creek. The two fish-bearing drainages had dissolved oxygen levels below the CCME guideline levels for the protection of aquatic life coolwater species at all life stages (Table 6 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). During the winter aquatic habitat investigations, where water was present, Kyklo Creek and the fish-bearing drainage to Kyklo Creek at KPK 7.4 had dissolved oxygen levels below the CCME guideline level for coolwater species (Table 6 of Appendix 2 of this ESA).

Table 7 of Appendix 2 of this ESA summarizes the fish habitat potential ratings for the four proposed crossings from the open water assessments and winter aquatic habitat investigations along this proposed pipeline loop. Fish habitat potential at these proposed crossings was rated for some of the fish species that may occur near the crossings.

The unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek at KPK 1.7 was rated 'nil' to 'poor' for spawning, rearing, wintering and migration habitat potential for sportfish species that may occur near the proposed crossing. Kyklo Creek was rated 'poor' and 'marginal' for northern pike and walleye spawning, rearing and wintering. It

Page 5-33

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 was also rated 'suboptimal' for northern pike and walleye migration. The two fish-bearing drainages were rated 'nil' for spawning, rearing, wintering and migration habitat potential for all fish species that may occur.

Table 9 of Appendix 2 of this ESA provides a summary of the dominant riparian vegetation species present at each of the proposed crossings. Tree, shrub, forb, grass and sedge species were identified as the dominant vegetation.

Fish inventories were conducted at all four of the proposed crossings during the open water assessments. Fish were captured at all four proposed crossings. No sportfish or provincially-listed species were captured during fish sampling. Table 8 of Appendix 2 of this ESA provides the sampling efforts and results of the fish inventories. No fish inventories were conducted during the winter aquatic habitat investigations.

The unnamed tributary to Kyklo Creek at KPK 1.7 was sampled on June 7, 2009 with a backpack electrofisher and baited gee minnow traps. One finescale dace was captured during backpack electrofishing. No fish were captured in the minnow traps.

Kyklo Creek was sampled on June 16, 2009 with a float electrofisher and baited gee minnow traps. Trout-perch (1), longnose sucker (2), finescale dace (2) and flathead chub (8) were captured during float electrofishing. No fish were captured in the minnow traps.

Baited gee minnow traps were set in both fish-bearing drainages in June 2009 and no fish were captured. A second season of sampling was conducted on October 26 and 27, 2010 at the fish-bearing drainages. The Fish Collection Permit from the province of BC did not allow electrofishing when water temperatures were below 5oC. Therefore, electrofishing was not conducted during the second season of sampling and minnow trapping was the only fish sampling method conducted in late fall 2010. Finescale dace (217) and brook stickleback (451) were abundant in the fish-bearing drainage to Kyklo Creek at KPK 7.4 during the second season of sampling. Brook stickleback (8) were captured in the fish-bearing drainage to the Kotcho River at KPK 26.5 during the second season of sampling.

Fish inventories and habitat investigations suggest overwintering habitat is limiting in the study reach. The fish-bearing drainages from the spring/summer fish inventories resulted in no fish captures. The late fall fish inventories resulted in fish captures at the same sites. The winter habitat investigations revealed 'nil' to 'poor' wintering conditions. The results suggest that the lack of suitable winter fish habitat causes winter fish kills at or near the proposed crossings. The offspring of fish that survive the winter in the LSA then spread throughout the RSA during the open water season.

No fish species have been previously documented at the proposed crossings on the two watercourses and the two fish-bearing drainages. Fish previously documented in Kyklo Creek (approximately 22 km upstream of the proposed crossing on Kyklo Creek) include finescale dace and brook stickleback. Fish previously documented in the Kotcho River (approximately 30 km downstream of the Project area) include northern pike, burbot, white sucker and finescale dace (BC MOE 2011a, BC MFLNRO 2011).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Open water aquatic assessments were conducted from October 17 to 22, 2010 and winter aquatic habitat investigations were conducted from January 27 to February 1, 2011 along the Timberwolf Section. This proposed pipeline loop was traversed to assess all of the watercourses with defined bed and banks (as determined by a qualified aquatic environment specialist [QAES]) were assessed.

An open water assessment was not conducted on the proposed Hay River crossing due to poor weather conditions at the time of the October 2010 field visit. An open water assessment will be conducted in summer 2011 during open water conditions. Aboriginal communities who are potentially impacted by this pipeline loop will be invited to participate in this supplemental survey.

All drainages lacking defined bed and banks (as determined by the QAES) along this proposed pipeline loop were also visited. Aquatic habitat assessment and fish inventories were conducted at drainage crossings if the QAES believed fish and fish habitat may be present. Drainages that were visited and had

Page 5-34

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 no fish habitat potential were photo documented and their locations (UTM co-ordinates) were recorded. Drainages with beaver activity were also noted.

Table 10 of Appendix 2 of this ESA summarizes the results of the open water aquatic assessments and winter aquatic habitat investigations conducted on the watercourses and fish-bearing drainages crossed by this proposed pipeline loop.

There were 14 proposed crossings identified along the Timberwolf Section. At the time of the open water assessment, water was present at all 13 of the proposed crossings assessed along this proposed pipeline loop (Hay River was not assessed).

Of the four watercourses assessed in October 2010 (i.e., excluding the Hay River) that were not influenced by beavers, three had mean bankfull widths less than 5 m wide and one proposed crossing (Little Buffalo River) had a mean bankfull width greater than 5 m wide (i.e., 11.4 m). Beaver activity was present on Chasm Creek (approximately 50 m upstream) and the unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 39.6 (approximately 250 m downstream); however, it was not influencing the proposed crossing at the time of the open water assessments. No beaver activity was present on the Little Buffalo River and the unnamed tributary to Bivouac Creek at KPT 26.8 at the time of the open water assessments.

Watercourses and Drainages Not Influenced by Beavers At the time of the winter aquatic habitat investigations, ice and water were present in three of the five watercourses not influenced by beaver activity (Hay River, Little Buffalo River and Chasm Creek). The remaining two watercourses (unnamed tributary to Bivouac Creek at KPT 26.8 and unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 39.6) were frozen to the bottom.

Watercourses and Drainages Influenced by Beavers At the time of the open water assessment, the wetted widths of the nine fish-bearing beaver dam complexes ranged from open water to multiple wet areas of open water interspersed with vegetation. There were four fish-bearing beaver dam complexes that had open water at the proposed crossing (unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 12.9, unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek at KPT 30.6, Beaverskin Creek and Snowfall Creek). The remaining five fish-bearing beaver dam complexes had multiple wet areas of open water interspersed with vegetation. Most of the water depths of the fish-bearing beaver dam complexes were unable to be determined since the substrates were too soft for the field crews to wade. Native channel widths were determined at three (unnamed tributary to Little Buffalo River at KPT 17.3, Beaverskin Creek, unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 36.4) of the five beaver dam complexes that were identified as watercourses (Table 10 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). At the remaining two beaver dam complexes (unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 12.9 and unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek at KPT 30.6), the native channel widths were unable to be determined since the beaver dam complexes extended upstream and downstream past the distance travelled by the field crews (i.e., the study reach).

At the time of the winter aquatic habitat investigations, ice and water were present at five of the nine crossings influenced by beaver activity (unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 12.9, Bivouac Creek, unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek at KPT 30.6, Beaverskin Creek and Snowfall Creek). The four remaining crossings were frozen to the bottom (unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 10.0, unnamed tributary to Little Buffalo River at KPT 17.3, unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 33.1) and dry (unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 36.4) at the time of the winter aquatic habitat investigations.

All Watercourses and Drainages The CCME (2007) guideline for the protection of aquatic life for pH and dissolved oxygen levels are provided above in the Kyklo Creek Section. During the open water assessment, the pH levels were within the preferred range for the protection of aquatic life at 12 of the 13 sites assessed. The fish-bearing beaver dam complex on the unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 33.1 was the exception, which had a pH level of 6.4 (Table 10 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). During the winter aquatic habitat investigations, pH levels at the crossings where water was present were similar to the pH levels

Page 5-35

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 measured during the open water assessments and were all within the preferred range for the protection of aquatic life.

During the open water assessments, dissolved oxygen levels were above the CCME guideline levels for the protection of aquatic life for coldwater and coolwater species at all life stages in 4 of the 13 watercourses assessed (the Little Buffalo River, Chasm Creek, the unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 39.6 and the unnamed tributary to Little Buffalo River at KPT 17.3) (Table 10 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). Two watercourses had dissolved oxygen levels below the guideline for early life stages of coldwater species, but above the guideline for other life stages and coolwater species (Beaverskin Creek and unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 12.9). Of the 13 watercourses assessed, 6 (unnamed tributary to Bivouac Creek at KPT 26.8, unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 10.0, Bivouac Creek, unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek at KPT 30.6 and unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 33.1 and unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 36.4) had dissolved oxygen levels that were lower than 5.5 mg/L (i.e., lower than the guideline for coolwater species in life stages other than early life stages). One watercourse had dissolved oxygen levels above the guideline for coolwater species but below the guideline for coldwater species (Snowfall Creek) (Table 10 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). During the winter aquatic habitat investigations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the Little Buffalo River, Chasm Creek and Beaverskin Creek were similar to the open water levels. The remaining crossings that had water present during the winter aquatic habitat investigations (unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 12.9, Bivouac Creek, unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek at KPT 30.6 and Snowfall Creek) were below the CCME guideline for coolwater species. The six remaining watercourses were frozen to the bottom or dry during the winter aquatic habitat investigations.

The Hay River at the time of the winter aquatic habitat investigations had pH and dissolved oxygen levels within the preferred range for the protection of aquatic life and above the CCME guideline levels for the protection of aquatic life for coldwater and coolwater species, respectively. An open water assessment of the Hay River will be completed during the spring of 2011.

Table 11 of Appendix 2 of this ESA summarizes the fish habitat potential ratings for the 13 proposed crossings assessed along this proposed pipeline loop during the fall 2010 open water assessments (i.e., with the exception of the Hay River). Winter habitat potential ratings were determined in all 14 proposed crossings during the winter aquatic habitat investigations. Fish habitat potential at these sites was rated for some of the fish species that may occur near the crossings.

Spawning, rearing, wintering and migration habitat potential was rated 'nil' to 'marginal' for Arctic grayling, northern pike and lake chub in most of the watercourses assessed. Rearing habitat potential was rated 'suboptimal' downstream of the proposed crossing for the above-mentioned species in Chasm Creek and for lake chub in the Little Buffalo River, the unnamed tributary to Hay River at KPT 10.0 and Snowfall Creek. Wintering habitat potential was rated 'suboptimal' for the above-mentioned species in the Little Buffalo River and Beaverskin Creek. Migration habitat potential was rated 'optimal' in the Little Buffalo River and "sub-optimal" in the unnamed tributary to Bivouac Creek at KPT 26.8, for Arctic grayling, northern pike and lake chub. Spawning and rearing habitat was rated "optimal" for finescale dace and brook stickleback in Bivouac Creek and the unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek at KPT 30.6 and "sub-optimal" for finescale dace in the unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 33.1. Migration habitat potential was rated "sub-optimal" for all species noted in the unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek at KPT 30.6 and the unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 33.1.

Wintering habitat potential was rated 'suboptimal' in the Hay River during the winter aquatic habitat investigations. Spawning, rearing and migration habitat potential ratings will be determined for the Hay River during a supplemental open water assessment in the spring of 2011.

Fish inventories were conducted at 13 of the proposed crossings assessed during the open water assessments (Hay River was not assessed). No fish inventories were conducted during the winter aquatic habitat investigations except at the Hay River. An AquaVu video camera was used for 15 minutes to tape fish observations under the ice during winter conditions. No fish were observed in the Hay River during winter conditions by the AquaVu video camera. Table 12 of Appendix 2 of this ESA provides the sampling efforts and results of the fish inventories.

Page 5-36

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Fish were captured at 9 of the 13 sites assessed during the fall 2010 open water assessments. There were no sportfish or provincially-listed species captured during fish sampling. Brook stickleback and finescale dace were the only fish species captured during fish sampling at the nine sites where fish were captured. No fish were captured in the Little Buffalo River, Chasm Creek, unnamed tributary to Beaverskin Creek at KPT 39.6 and Beaverskin Creek.

Fish sampling was conducted using baited gee minnow traps at 12 of the 13 sites assessed during the open water assessments. At the remaining watercourse, the unnamed tributary to Bivouac Creek at KPT 26.8, fish sampling was conducted using a backpack electrofisher.

Fish species have been previously documented at 5 of the 14 proposed crossings. Fish previously documented in the Hay River at the proposed crossing include walleye, emerald shiner, finescale dace, brook stickleback, trout-perch and white sucker. Fish previously documented at the proposed crossings on the Little Buffalo River and the unnamed tributary to Little Buffalo River at KPT 17.3 include lake chub, longnose sucker, brook stickleback and finescale dace. Fish previously documented in Chasm Creek and the unnamed tributary to Chasm Creek at KPT 30.6 include longnose sucker, white sucker, finescale dace and brook stickleback (FWMIS 2011).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Open water aquatic assessments were conducted from October 9 to 11, 2010 and winter aquatic habitat investigations were conducted from February 7 to 8, 2011 along the Cranberry Section. This proposed pipeline loop was traversed to assess all of the watercourses with defined bed and banks (as determined by a QAES) and drainages lacking defined bed and banks were assessed as described above along the Timberwolf Section.

At the time of the open water assessment, water was present at the three watercourse crossings and one fish-bearing drainage along this proposed pipeline loop. The mean bankfull widths were less than 5 m wide at the unnamed tributary to Midget Creek at KPC 2.4 and Sloat Creek. The mean bankfull width at the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River at KPC 26.4 was greater than 5 m wide (i.e., 7.9 m). The wetted width of the fish-bearing drainage was not recorded since there were multiple areas of open water interspersed with vegetation. In addition, a large beaver pond was present approximately 50 m to 100 m downstream from the proposed crossing, which is suspected to be the headwaters of Midget Creek. The proposed crossing on the fish-bearing drainage was not influenced by the beaver activity downstream. No beaver activity was recorded on the remaining three watercourse crossings.

At the time of the winter aquatic habitat investigations, all four proposed crossings were dry (unnamed tributary to Midget Creek at KPC 2.4) or frozen to the bottom (Sloat Creek, unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River at KPC 26.4 and fish-bearing drainage at KPC 6.4).

The CCME (2007) guideline for the protection of aquatic life for pH and dissolved oxygen are provided above for the Kyklo Creek Section. During the open water assessment, the pH levels were within the preferred range for the protection of aquatic life at all four sites (Table 13 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). Dissolved oxygen levels were above the CCME guideline levels for the protection of aquatic life for coldwater and coolwater species in the three watercourses (Table 13 of Appendix 2 of this ESA). The fish-bearing drainage at KPC 6.4 had a dissolved oxygen level that was lower than 5.5 mg/L (i.e., lower than the guideline for coolwater species in life stages other than early life stages) (Table 13 of Appendix 2 of this ESA).

Table 14 of Appendix 2 of this ESA summarizes the fish habitat potential ratings for the four proposed crossings along this proposed pipeline loop. Wintering habitat potential ratings were determined during the winter aquatic habitat investigations. Fish habitat potential at these sites was rated for some of the fish species that may occur near the crossings.

Spawning, rearing, and wintering habitat potential was rated 'nil' and migration habitat potential was rated 'marginal' for all fish species that may be present in the unnamed tributary to Midget Creek at KPC 2.4. Spawning, rearing, and wintering habitat potential was rated 'nil' to 'marginal' and migration habitat potential was rated 'suboptimal' for Arctic grayling and northern pike in Sloat Creek. The unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River at KPC 26.4 was rated 'suboptimal' for Arctic grayling spawning, rearing and migration habitat potential and 'suboptimal' to 'optimal' for brook stickleback spawning, rearing and

Page 5-37

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 migration habitat potential. Wintering habitat potential was rated 'nil' in the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River at KPC 26.4 since the watercourse was frozen to the bottom during the winter aquatic habitat investigations.

The fish-bearing drainage at KPC 6.4 was rated 'poor' for Arctic grayling spawning, rearing, wintering and migration habitat potential and was rated 'poor' to 'marginal' rearing, wintering and migration habitat potential and 'suboptimal' for spawning habitat potential for brook stickleback and lake chub.

Fish inventories were conducted at all four of the proposed crossings along this proposed pipeline loop during the open water assessments. No fish inventories were conducted during the winter aquatic habitat investigations. Table 15 of Appendix 2 of this ESA provides the sampling efforts and results of the fish inventories.

No sportfish or provincially-listed species were captured during fish sampling. Brook stickleback was the only fish species captured during fish sampling in the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River at KPC 26.4. No fish were captured at the remaining sites.

Fish sampling was conducted using baited gee minnow traps at the unnamed tributary to Midget Creek at KPC 2.4, Sloat Creek and the fish-bearing drainage at KPC 6.4. Fish sampling was also conducted using a backpack electrofisher at Sloat Creek and the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River at KPC 26.4.

Arctic grayling and longnose sucker were previously documented in the unnamed tributary to Chinchaga River approximately 2 km upstream from the proposed crossing. Arctic grayling have been previously documented approximately 5 km downstream from the proposed crossing on the fish-bearing drainage in Midget Creek. Fish previously documented in Sloat Creek approximately 17 km downstream from the proposed crossing include lake chub, longnose dace and longnose sucker. No fish species have been previously documented at the unnamed tributary to Midget Creek at KPC 2.4 (FWMIS 2011).

5.7.5.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge TEK was collected in partnership between TERA and members of Fort Nelson First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Beaver First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation to discuss the role of fishing activities for local peoples and cultures, and to document traditional values and observations regarding aquatic aspects of the local and regional landscape. Review of TEK information with each participating Aboriginal community is ongoing.

Participants of the TEK study reported that whitefish, northern pike (i.e., jackfish) and walleye (i.e., pickerel) are of traditional economic value for food and cultural well-being. Kyklo Creek was noted as an active fishing location for minnows and other species that would be taken as bait. These species would include finescale dace, flathead chub, longnose sucker and trout perch. It was also noted that the Hay River is used for navigation and, to the Dene people, the Hay River is known as the Highway. Detailed TEK results and methodologies can be found within the Aquatic Assessment included in Appendix 2 of this ESA.

5.8 Wetlands This subsection presents a summary of the findings related to wetlands in the proposed Wetland RSA (see Figure 6.5). The results of the wetland assessment are provided in Appendix 3 of this ESA. Wetlands along the three proposed pipeline loops are identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 9 of this ESA). Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to wetlands are discussed in Section 6.2.8 of this ESA.

For discussion of wetland ecosystem distribution in the Wetland RSA, both the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) System Zones and Subzones (Meidinger and Pojar 1991) along with the Wetland Regions of Canada (Government of Canada 1986) provide descriptions. The BEC System Zones and Subzones have been altered to better reflect wetlands in BC (Mackenzie and Moran 2004).

In many classifications (National Wetland Working Group [NWWG] 1997, Halsey and Vitt 1996, Mackenzie and Moran 2004), wetlands are further divided based on soil properties into mineral (nonpeat) wetlands and organic (or peatland) wetlands. Mineral wetlands typically include shallow open water (less

Page 5-38

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 than 2 m deep), marshes and swamps. Peat forming wetlands, referred to as “peatlands”, typically include bogs and fens (Smith et al. 2007).

5.8.1 Wetland Classification Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) A helicopter reconnaissance was conducted along the entire length of the Kyklo Creek Section on July 28, 2009 by a Qualified Wetland Aquatic Environment Specialist (QWAES). The objectives of the high-level helicopter reconnaissance were to generally identify, delineate and classify wetlands located along this pipeline loop and establish locations for recommended supplementary (ground-based) field work (i.e., summer 2011). Wetlands were photographed, documented and geo-referenced. The results of the Wetland Assessment are provided in Appendix 3 of this ESA.

This proposed loop is located in the BWBS BGC Zone and the Continental High Boreal Wetland Region. The BWBS BGC Zone is one of the largest zones in BC, covering approximately 10% of the province. The winters are much longer and colder than in other parts of BC. Permafrost is common in the northeastern parts of this zone and the Footprint crosses areas of discontinuous permafrost (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). In the Continental High Boreal Wetland Region, characteristic wetlands are peat plateau bogs and palsa bogs with collapse scars and veneer bogs. Continuous permafrost occurs in peat plateau and palsa bogs, and the amount of collapsing decreases in northern areas. The active layer ranges from 40 cm to 60 cm in the north of the region, to 1 m to 2 m on the southern fringe. Veneer bogs, common in the northern areas, are characterized by active layers of varying depths and permafrost. Stream swamps are locally common. The average peat thickness is 2 m to 3 m (Government of Canada 1986).

The general wetland objectives for the Fort Nelson LRMP include maintaining watershed hydrological integrity through managing resource development adjacent to sensitive waterbodies, lakes, wetlands, rivers and streams to minimize negative effects to water quality (BC ILMB 1997).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) A helicopter reconnaissance was conducted along the entire length of the Timberwolf Section from October 16 to 19, 2010 by a QWAES. The objectives of the high-level wetland reconnaissance were to generally identify, delineate and classify wetlands located along this pipeline loop and establish locations for the recommended supplementary (ground-based) field work for summer 2011. Wetlands were photographed, documented and geo-referenced. Ground-based wetland surveys of this proposed pipeline loop were conducted at select locations in association with the helicopter reconnaissance. The ground- based surveys targeted specific wetlands to obtain detailed information from representative wetland types crossed by this proposed pipeline loop, but did not encompass most of the wetlands crossed by the pipeline loop. Peat was probed to a depth of approximately 0.4 m during ground-based wetland surveys to confirm sufficient peat accumulation for "peatland" wetland classification. The results of the Wetland Assessment are provided in Appendix 3 of this ESA.

This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region and the Continental High Boreal Wetland Region. For a description of landscapes in the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion see the Vegetation Section (Section 5.9 of this ESA).

There are no specific development objectives related to wetlands outlined in the Mackenzie County MDP. Environmental Protection Policies in the County of Northern Lights include the encouragement of development plans that do not impact wetland habitats and that connect natural habitats and maintain a variety of habitat types in a connected natural landscape (County of Northern Lights 2010).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) A helicopter reconnaissance was conducted along the entire length of the Cranberry Section from October 16 to 19, 2010 by a QWAES. The objectives of the high-level wetland reconnaissance were to generally identify, delineate and classify wetlands located along this pipeline loop, and establish locations for the recommended supplementary (ground-based) field work for summer 2011. Wetlands were photographed, documented and geo-referenced. Ground-based wetland surveys of this proposed pipeline loop were conducted at select locations in association with the helicopter reconnaissance. The ground- based surveys targeted specific wetlands to obtain detailed information from representative wetland types

Page 5-39

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

crossed by this proposed pipeline loop but did not encompass most of the wetlands traversed by them. Peat was probed to a depth of approximately 0.4 m during ground-based wetland surveys to confirm sufficient peat accumulation for "peatland" wetland classification. The results of the Wetland Assessment are provided in Appendix 3 of this ESA.

This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Upper and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region and the Continental High Boreal Wetland Region. For a description of landscapes in the Upper and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregions see the Vegetation Section (Section 5.9 of this ESA).

There are no specific development objectives related to wetlands outlined in the Clear Hills County MDP (Clear Hills County 1999).

All Pipeline Loops Oil and gas activities are prevalent in each Wetland RSA of the three proposed pipeline loops. Exploration and development activities related to the oil and gas sector include seismic, pipelines, well sites, access road and associated facilities such as gas processing plants.

Wetlands in the Project area are almost exclusively peatland. Peatland is a generic term including all types of peat-covered terrain. The term "muskeg" is commonly used informally in place of peatland or wetland.

The three proposed pipeline loops are not located in an area designated by the Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2010).

For the purposes of this ESA, wetlands are "…areas where soils are water-saturated for a sufficient length of time such that excess water and resulting low soil oxygen levels are principal determinants of vegetation and soil development. Wetlands will have a relative abundance of hydrophytes in the vegetation community and/or soils featuring 'hydric' characters…" (Mackenzie and Moran 2004).

This wetland definition encompasses a wide range of ecosystems, from semi-terrestrial fens, bogs, and swamps to semi-aquatic marshes and shallow open water. Wetlands include a broad range of ecosystem types, from those permanently flooded by shallow water and dominated by aquatic organisms to forested sites with merely moist soils. Table 5.15 describes the common wetland types found along the proposed pipeline loops.

Wetland classifications are often distinguished based on a moisture gradient and often occur in transition between one wetland class and another, or have smaller inclusions of wetlands of different classes located within larger areas. For this reason, wetland classification is a best attempt to describe the majority of an area, but can not accurately detail all that occurs at a site.

TABLE 5.15

COMMON WETLAND TYPES OCCURRING WITHIN EACH WETLAND LSA OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOPS

Dominant Wetland Class Wetland Description Wetland Class Characteristics Bog Bogs are peat covered wetlands in which • an accumulation of peat; (peatland) the vegetation shows the effects of a high • surface raised or level with surrounding terrain; water table and a general lack of nutrients. • water table at or slightly below the surface and raised above the The surface waters of bogs are strongly surrounding terrain; acidic. They exhibit cushion forming Sphagnum mosses and heath shrub • ombrogenous (nourished by precipitation); vegetation, both with and without trees. • moderately decomposed Sphagnum peat with woody remains of shrubs; • soils that are originally mineral, sandy or gravelly are covered by an accumulation of peat and are mostly Fibrisols, Mesisols and Organic Cryosols (permafrost soils); and • most frequently dominated by Sphagnum mosses with tree, shrub or treeless vegetation cover.

Page 5-40

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.15 Cont'd

Dominant Wetland Class Wetland Description Wetland Class Characteristics Fen Fens are peatlands characterized by a • an accumulation of peat; (peatland) high water table, with slow internal • surface is level with the water table, with water flow on the surface drainage by seepage down in low and through the subsurface; gradients. They may exhibit low to • fluctuating water table which may be at, or a few centimetres moderate nutrient content and may above or below, the surface; contain shrubs, trees, or neither. • minerogenous (nourished by groundwater); • decomposed sedge or brown moss peat; and • graminoids and shrubs characterize the vegetation cover. Marsh Marshes are wetlands that are periodically • mineral wetland that is periodically inundated by standing or slow (emergent) or permanently inundated by standing or moving waters; slowly moving water and as a result are • minerogenous (nourished by groundwater); rich in nutrients. Marshes are mainly wet, • substratum usually consists of mineral material, although mineral soil areas. They are subject to a occasionally it consists of peat deposits; and gravitational water table, but water emergent aquatic macrophytes largely rushes, reeds, grasses, remains within the rooting zone of plants • and sedges and some floating aquatic macrophytes. for most of the growing season. Swamp Swamps occur where there is an • usually occurring where there is an abundant flow of near surface (treed/shrub) abundant flow of near surface groundwater, on slope breaks, peatland margins, inactive flood groundwater, periodic aeration, with the plain back channels, back levee depressions, lake margins and possibility of elevated microsites allowing gullies; the growth of trees or tall shrubs under • often occur as components of larger wetland systems; subhydric conditions. Swamps are • can be characterized by tall shrubs and/or forested with a moderately productive with saturated soils. well-developed herb layer; Deeper peat deposits are encountered. A • shrub layer may be well-developed or sparse; and diversity of upland and wetland species is common. • moss layer growth is typically poor due to abundant shade and litterfall. Shallow Open Shallow open waters include potholes, • distinct wetlands transitional between those wetlands that are Water sloughs or ponds as well as waters along saturated or seasonally wet (bog, fen, marsh or swamp) and (mineral / peatland) river, coast and lakeshore areas. They are permanent, deep waterbodies; usually relatively small bodies of standing • standing water less than 2 m deep in mid-summer; or flowing water that are less than 2 m • natural impoundments such as beaver ponds or other open water deep. The surface waters appear open, wetland systems are included where water levels are not generally free of emergent vegetation. regulated; and • usually associated with lacustrine (lake) or fluvial (stream) systems. Sources: Bond et al. 1992, Government of Canada 1986, NWWG 1997, Mackenzie and Moran 2004.

5.8.2 Summary of Field Results Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Wetlands crossed by the Kyklo Creek Section include 12.6 km of treed swamp, 2.1 km of treed bog, 1.5 km of shrubby swamp, 1.3 km of shrubby fen and 1.1 km of treed fen. In total, wetlands (i.e., peatlands) are crossed for approximately 18.6 km comprising approximately 63% of the total length of this pipeline loop (Appendix 3 of this ESA).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Wetlands crossed by the Timberwolf Section include 12.8 km of treed bog, 8.2 km of treed fen, 4.3 km of shrubby fen, 1 km of non-woody fen, 0.7 km of shallow open water, 0.5 km of treed swamp (broad- leaved), 0.3 km of emergent marsh and 0.1 km of shrubby swamp. In total, 79 wetlands (i.e., peatlands) are crossed for approximately 27.9 km comprising approximately 56% of the total length of this pipeline loop (Appendix 3 of this ESA).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section crosses 1.3 km of treed fen, 0.9 km of shrubby swamp, 0.4 km of non-woody fen, and 0.3 km of shrubby fen. In total, wetlands (i.e., peatlands) are crossed for approximately 2.9 km comprising approximately 11% of the total length of this pipeline loop (Appendix 3 of this ESA).

Page 5-41

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.8.2.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge TEK was collected in partnership between TERA and members of Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation. Representatives from these groups met to discuss the role of the local plants for local peoples and cultures, and document traditional values and observations regarding vegetation aspects of the local and regional landscape. Review of TEK information with each participating Aboriginal community is ongoing.

Aboriginal TEK participants recognize the inter-connection of wetlands to many other elements of the environment. TEK participants identified that watercourses and small drainages also support moose and beaver, both of which are important economically and culturally to Aboriginal communities. Bogs were noted to support caribou, fisher, marten, squirrel and useful plants such as blueberries, cloudberries, low- bush cranberry, Labrador tea, Sphagnum moss and black spruce. Aboriginal TEK participants noted that these plants are harvested for important uses including medicinal purposes. Within fens, tamarack was noted to be a useful building material. During the wetland assessment, the only identified traditional practices surrounding wetland areas were hunting (wildlife and waterfowl) and trapping. Aboriginal community members also stated that muskeg is a good source of drinking water since it feeds most of the lakes and rivers in the area.

A story was shared of a plant that is located in wetland areas. This plant is eaten by swans, which then begin to act in an almost drunken manner. Such an event happens annually and can be translated as "the dancing days" from its Aboriginal name for this time of the year. This plant can be harvested and prepared as a drink. The plant is said to have medicinal properties, if prepared correctly. The plant is poisonous if prepared improperly. Detailed TEK results and methodologies are provided within the Wetland Assessment in Appendix 3 of this ESA. The names, locations and uses of medicinal plants is knowledge held by the TEK participants and is proprietary to the community.

5.9 Vegetation This subsection presents a summary of the findings related to ecosystem classification, anticipated growth rates, maximum canopy height and crown closure, non-native and invasive species as well as rare vascular plants and communities in the Project area. Rare plant locations along the proposed pipeline loops are identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 9 of this ESA). Potential Project- related effects and mitigation pertaining to vegetation and forest health are discussed in Section 6.2.9 of this ESA.

The location and classification of vegetation communities, and the TEK associated with those communities, is discussed in the Vegetation Assessment included in Appendix 4 of this ESA. Information on the amount, merchantability and location of any merchantable timber to be removed during the Project will be provided in the Detailed Timber Merchantability and Salvagability Plan for the Kyklo Creek Section and Detailed Timber Salvage Plans for the Timberwolf Section and Cranberry Section. At the time of application, these plans have not yet been finalized and are currently in preparation.

Information on the current level of disturbance to the vegetation in the Project area is provided in Section 7.1.9 of the ESA.

5.9.1 Ecosystem Classification For the Kyklo Creek Section in BC, nomenclature is according to the BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer (BC MOE 2010d), while nomenclature for the Timberwolf Section and Cranberry Sections, located in Alberta, is according to the list of all elements in Alberta (Alberta Conservation Information Management System [ACIMS] 2010a).

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located within the BWBS BGC Zone in the Fort Nelson Forest District (FD). This zone is subject to very short growing seasons. The winters are much longer and colder than in other parts of BC and discontinuous permafrost is common in the northeastern parts of this zone. The most common tree species in this zone are white spruce, aspen, lodgepole pine, black spruce, balsam poplar, tamarack, and paper birch (known as white birch in Alberta). Forests of variable successional stages are

Page 5-42

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 present in this zone due to frequent forest fires (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). The Footprint lies within the Fort Nelson Moist Warm Subzone in the BWBS BGC Zone.

The Fort Nelson Moist Warm Subzone (BWBSmw2) covers the undulating terrain and lowlands from near the Beatton River in the south, to the Northwest Territories and Yukon borders in the north. In this subzone, trembling aspen - white spruce forests dominate the more well-drained sites. On poorly-drained sites, black spruce forests, often with a minor component of tamarack are common. Tamarack can form almost pure stands on very wet sites. Lodgepole pine is relatively common on well-drained higher elevation sites and on wetter sites in combination with black spruce.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

Landscapes in the Lower Boreal Highlands are characterized by diverse mixedwood forests on moist lower slopes of northern hill systems and extensive wetlands at slope bases and on adjacent lowlands. Forests are a mix of aspen, balsam poplar, black spruce, white spruce and white birch (known as paper birch in BC), with hybrids of lodgepole pine and jack pine occurring on slopes. Treed, shrubby or graminoid fens occur in depressions, seepage zones or level areas.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Lower Boreal Highlands (see Timberwolf Section above) and Upper Boreal Highlands Natural Subregions of the Boreal Forest Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006).

The Upper Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion consist of coniferous dominated woodlands and extensive wetlands confined to upper slopes and plateaus of isolated hills in northern Alberta (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Local climate is typically characterized by cooler temperatures and higher annual precipitation than the surrounding Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion. Coniferous forests dominated by lodgepole pine or lodgepole pine - jack pine hybrids characterize typical uplands with aspen dominated mixedwood forests less extensive than other Natural Subregions in the Boreal Forest Natural Region. Wetlands situated in depressions are frequently extensive and typically consist of nutrient-poor bogs and fens dominated by black spruce and peatmosses. Where nutrient-rich water occurs, tamarack, golden mosses and willows may develop.

5.9.2 Forest Metrics 5.9.2.1 Growth Rates Growth rates of trees and shrubs may vary within regions according to local soil, landscape and climate conditions and among species (Timoney 2001). For example, aspen, balsam poplar and lodgepole pine are initially among the faster growing tree species, reaching breast height (i.e., 130 cm) at approximately five years, while white and black spruce are initially slower growing, reaching breast height at approximately eight years (Timoney 2001). Average tree heights at 50 years (also referred to as Site Index) for a variety of trees species common in the Project area are provided for Biogeoclimatic Zone by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range (BC MOFR) (2008) and by Ecological Area by the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). These values are presented in Table 5.16.

Page 5-43

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.16

ESTIMATED TREE HEIGHT AT FIFTY YEARS IN THE BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONE/ECOLOGICAL AREA CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOPS

Average tree height at 50 years (m) Species BC1 Alberta2 Trembling aspen n/a 17.1 – 17.2 Paper birch (known as white birch in n/a 15.5 Alberta) Lodgepole pine 12.0 – 18.0 n/a Jack Pine n/a 10.7 – 14.4 Tamarack 12.0 - 15.0 8.8 Black spruce 8.4 - 15.0 7.9 – 13.1 White spruce 9.0 – 18.0 15.7 Sources: Beckingham and Archibald 1996, BC MOFR 2008 Notes: 1 Based on values for the BWBSmw2 2 Based on values for the Boreal Highlands

5.9.2.2 Anticipated Canopy Heights and Crown Closure Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) In BC, general forest stand delineation and composition information is made available by the BC MFLNRO by way of a Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) (BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management [MSRM] 2002). VRI provides an estimate of height at 50 years for the dominant species in every forested polygon, based on a normalized set of coefficients calibrated to reflect the range of heights for a given tree species (BC MOFR 2007), this is referred to as the Estimated Site Index. Table 5.17 provides the range of Estimated Site Index values present in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop. VRI also provides a crown closure value for every treed polygon (defined as polygons with tree crown closure equal to or greater than 10%). This value represents crown closure when the VRI was done and includes immature forests, therefore only polygons over 50 years of age are considered when determining a range of maximum canopy closures (Table 5.17).

TABLE 5.17

CANOPY HEIGHTS AND CROWN CLOSURE FOR POLYGONS IN THE VICINITY OF THIS PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOP

Crown Closure Range (polygons Dominant species in polygon Estimated Site Index Range (m) in excess of 50 years) Trembling Aspen 13 – 22 10% – 75% Balsam Poplar 15 – 20 10% – 75% Paper Birch 3 – 17 10% – 45% Tamarack 3 – 8 10% – 60% Black Spruce 2 – 12 10% – 80% White Spruce 2 – 22 10% – 75%

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) and Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) In Alberta, general forest stand delineation and composition information is made available by ASRD through the Phase 3 Forest Inventory Program (Phase 3) conducted from 1970 to 1984 (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources [AENR] 1970+). Phase 3 maps provide a height class and crown closure (referred to as crown density in Phase 3) for every delineated polygon; however, this information is not specific to

Page 5-44

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 each component species. Height classes and crown closure provided on Phase 3 maps represent the estimated height of trees at the time of delineation, and are not an estimate of the Site Index (as provided by VRI in BC). Therefore only polygons with an estimated age of fifty years or great are included considered in determining the expected range of canopy height and closure. Delineated polygons over 50 years of age encountered by the Timberwolf Section and Cranberry Section have an estimated forest height ranging from 6.1 m to 30.0 m and a crown closure ranging from 6% to 100% closure (AENR 1970+).

5.9.3 Non-Native and Invasive Species 5.9.3.1 Invasive and Weedy Species Weed control is of concern to stakeholders and local government agencies. According to the Alberta Weed Control Act, Prohibited Noxious weeds are those that must be destroyed and Noxious weeds are those that must be controlled. Nuisance weeds are no longer listed in Alberta or regulated by the Weed Control Act. In BC, provincial Noxious weeds are those that must be controlled in all regions, and Regional Noxious weeds are those that must be controlled in the region(s) for which they are listed. Nuisance weeds in BC are identified (Cranston et al. 2002) but are not regulated by the BC Weed Control Act. There are many additional, non-listed species that are introduced to Alberta and BC (i.e., non-native), including seeded agronomic species and horticulturally-used species, that can be invasive in certain land uses. The status of species as native or not is determined according to the list of all elements in Alberta (ACIMS 2010a) and the BC Species and Ecosystem Explorer (BC MOE 2010d).

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Northeast Invasive Plant Committee (NEIPC) indicated that their weed species of concern were the prohibited invasive plants and the primary invasive plants listed in the NEIPC 2010 Plan and Profile (Crumblin pers. comm., NEIPC 2010). In addition, they noted that scentless chamomile, a primary invasive plant, is known to occur in the vicinity of the Kyklo Creek Section (Crumblin pers. comm.). Therefore, it was identified as the species most likely to be encountered by this proposed loop.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Three noxious weeds, creeping thistle, ox-eye daisy and scentless chamomile, were known to occur in the vicinity of Rainbow Lake, Alberta and, therefore, could be of concern along the northern portion of this proposed pipeline loop (Bunn pers. comm.).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) No invasive or weedy species were identified to be of concern in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop (Bunn pers. comm.).

5.9.4 Forest Pests Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Bark beetles such as spruce beetle, western balsam bark beetle, mountain pine beetle (MPB) and lodgepole pine beetle pose a serious threat to mature coniferous forests in BC. The forests in the Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area (TSA) are predominately composed of large stands of trembling aspen and white spruce. As a result, some areas may be susceptible to attack by beetles, especially the spruce beetle (Fort Nelson FD 2008). Data shows three infestations of spruce beetle in 2004 in the vicinity of Kotcho River (GeoBC 2010). One infestation located approximately 15 km north of the Kyklo Creek Section and 3 km east of the Kotcho River was approximately 55 ha in size and had a pest severity code rated as moderate (GeoBC 2010). Another infestation, located approximately 3 km east of the first infestation, was approximately 27 ha in size with a pest severity code rated as severe (GeoBC 2010). A third infestation, located approximately 1 km southeast of the first infestation, was approximately 10 ha in size with a pest severity code rated as severe (GeoBC 2010). Areas such as these are managed as outlined in the Bark Beetle Management Guidebook (BC Ministry of Forests [MOF] 1995).

The Fort Nelson FD was affected from 1985 to 2001 by an outbreak of the eastern spruce budworm. During those years, the principle tree species used as food by the budworm was the white spruce and the

Page 5-45

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 secondary species was the subalpine fir. In the years 2001 to 2007, it appears that there was a total collapse of the budworm populations as evidenced by various federal and provincial surveys (Fort Nelson FD 2008).

The MPB infestation in BC reaches as far north as Fort St. John (GeoBC 2010). This proposed pipeline loop and all associated facilities are located outside of the Emergency Bark Beetle Management Area (EBBMA) for MPB, Douglas fir beetle and spruce beetle in BC (BC MOFR 2010a). The Fort Nelson TSA is not currently under attack by MPB. In addition, the Mountain Pine Beetle Infested Timber Hauling and Milling Strategy is implemented and monitoring is conducted in the Fort Nelson TSA to ensure there is no spread of the beetle into the area (BC MOFR 2010b). If evidence of any bark beetle infestations is observed during the preconstruction field work, mitigation will be developed.

No symptoms of forest pests (e.g., defoliation, leaf discoloration) were observed during the vegetation assessment of this proposed pipeline loop.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) and Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) ASRD monitors the following forest pests on an annual basis: mountain pine beetle; aspen defoliators (including bruce spanworm, forest tent caterpillar and large aspen tortrix); and spruce budworm. Management Strategies are provided by ASRD for MPB and spruce budworm, however, only measures related to the management of MPB pertain to activities associated with pipeline construction (i.e., clearing, timber harvest and slash disposal).

These proposed pipeline loops are situated within an Inactive Holding Zone as part of the Alberta Mountain Pine Beetle Management Strategy (ASRD 2009b). The prime objective of the Inactive Holding Zone is to ensure MPB populations remain static from year to year. No restrictions are required for hauling timber within Inactive Holding Zones (ASRD 2010a).

No symptoms of forest pests (e.g., defoliation, leaf discoloration) were observed during the vegetation assessment of these proposed pipeline loops.

5.9.5 Rare Plants and Rare Ecological Communities Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) A rare plant survey was conducted from July 15 to 17, 2009 along those segments of this pipeline loop that were representative of the different vegetation types in the area, as well as those with a high potential to support rare plants or rare ecological communities. A supplemental rare plant habitat assessment was conducted for reroutes during a helicopter overflight on October 20, 2010. Due to their site-specific nature, rare plant surveys can only be conducted on the known Footprint and their results cannot always be extrapolated to route realignments made after surveys have been conducted. Therefore, supplemental surveys will be conducted for portions of this loop that have been revised since the initial survey. Results of the supplemental study will be provided to the NEB (Section 9.0 of this ESA). The complete results of the summer 2009 and fall 2010 Vegetation Assessment are provided in Appendix 4 of this ESA. A list of rare plants that have the potential to occur within the Vegetation RSA of this proposed pipeline loop are included in Table A1 of Appendix 4 of this ESA.

No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants are known from within 10 km of the proposed Footprint (BC CDC 2009, 2010a). As part of the supplemental desktop review in 2010, the 2003 Encana Ekwan Pipeline Inc. Ekwan Pipeline Project Spring Rare Plant Survey and Encana Ekwan Pipeline Inc. Ekwan Pipeline Project Summer Rare Plant Survey were reviewed (AXYS 2003a,b). These reports describe the results of the rare plant surveys for the pipeline adjacent to the Kyklo Creek Section; they describe records of seven provincially listed non-vascular species and one provincially listed vascular species within 10 km of this proposed pipeline loop. These species are provided in Table 2 of Appendix 4 of this ESA.

No COSEWIC or SARA-listed species or species designated under the BC Identified Wildlife Program were found during the summer 2009 and fall 2010 surveys. Three BC CDC-listed rare plant species were observed during the summer 2009 rare plant survey, including slender manna grass, western Jacob's-

Page 5-46

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 ladder and white adder’s-mouth orchid. Slender manna grass is ranked S2S3, on the Blue-list in BC and ranked G5 globally; western Jacob's-ladder is ranked S2S3, on the Blue-list in BC and ranked G5?T5? globally; and white adder’s-mouth orchid is ranked S2S3, on the Blue-list in BC and ranked G4 globally (NatureServe 2010).

No previously recorded occurrences of rare ecological communities were reported by the BC CDC in the Vegetation RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section (BC CDC 2009, 2010a). Rare ecological communities that have the potential to occur in the Vegetation RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section are identified in Appendix 4 of this ESA. No BC CDC-listed rare ecological communities were observed in the areas surveyed along the current alignment of this proposed pipeline loop. The potential for rare plants and rare ecological communities to be present on the right-of-way cannot be ruled out or precluded. Refer to Section 9.0 of this ESA for recommended supplemental surveys.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) and Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) No COSEWIC or SARA-listed species were observed during the fall 2010 habitat assessment. In addition, No species designated under the Alberta Wildlife Act or ACIMS-listed rare vascular plant species or rare ecological communities were observed during the fall 2010 habitat assessment. Due to the nature of helicopter reconnaissance, the presence of rare plants or rare ecological communities cannot be determined. Given the altitude at which helicopter overflights were conducted, the presence of species or rare ecological communities could not be assessed since identification could only be confirmed for canopy forming tree species and occasional large shrubs. The potential for rare plants and rare ecological communities to be present on the right-of-way cannot be ruled out or precluded. Refer to Section 9.0 of this ESA for recommended supplemental surveys.

5.9.5.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge TEK was collected in partnership between TERA and members of Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation to discuss the role of the local plants for local peoples and cultures, and to document traditional values and observations regarding vegetation aspects of the local and regional landscape. Review of TEK information with each participating Aboriginal community is ongoing.

In their traditional territories, TEK participants identified harvesting activities which follow a seasonal rotation, where certain medicinal plants are harvested in the early spring and berries, mature medicinal plants and fungus are harvested later in the summer months. During the field survey, it was reported by TEK participants that the plants of traditional economic value for food and cultural well-being include a variety of medicinal and berry species, as well as roots and bark of specific trees (e.g., birch).

The locations and uses of the medicinal plants is knowledge held by the TEK participants and proprietary to the community. Detailed TEK results and methodologies can be found within the Vegetation Assessment included in Appendix 4 of this ESA.

5.10 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat This subsection provides information on wildlife species and wildlife habitat along the proposed pipeline loops. This information assists in identifying the potential need for special measures to be implemented during construction. Provincially identified wildlife areas that have operating and/or associated timing restrictions are identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 9 of this ESA). Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to wildlife and wildlife habitat are discussed in Section 6.2.10 of this ESA.

5.10.1 Land Use Management Plans - Wildlife Objectives Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section is within the Etsho RMZ of the Fort Nelson LRMP (BC ILMB 1997). The Etsho RMZ is classified as an Enhanced Resource Development RMZ where investments in resource development, including oil and gas, mineral and forestry are encouraged. Management objectives for the Etsho RMZ include enhancement of timber harvesting and a sustainable long-term timber supply, and to

Page 5-47

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 maintain opportunities and access for oil and gas exploration, development and transportation. Identified wildlife strategies are related to the forestry objective and include reforesting potentially productive brush, non-commercial deciduous and Non-Sufficiently Restocked (NSR) areas with ecologically and commercially suitable tree species while providing for critical wildlife habitat. Additionally, wildlife strategies include planning disturbance to include stand level biodiversity that focuses on riparian areas and wildlife tree patches; and identification and mapping of caribou populations and habitats to provide information for more detailed strategic or operational planning processes (BC ILMB 1997). The general wildlife management objectives for the LRMP include the following goals:

• maintain the diversity and abundance of wildlife;

• maintain the integrity and diversity of existing habitats and ecosystems (including functional large predator prey systems);

• maintain threatened and endangered habitats, and the habitats of rare and endangered species;

• pursue resource management alternatives that favour ecological integrity;

• protect life and property from wildlife; and

• provide for recreational use such as viewing, hunting and appreciation of wildlife.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The southern end of the Timberwolf Section from KPT 41.4 to KPT 49.8 is within the County of Northern Lights, while the remainder of the proposed pipeline loop is within Mackenzie County (from KPT 0.0 to KPT 41.4). The County of Northern Lights Municipal Development Plan has identified an environmentally sensitive area in 104-12 W6M near the southern end of the proposed loop, which corresponds to the Environmentally Significant Area (No. 548) identified by Alberta Tourism Parks and Recreation (ATPR) (2009) (refer to Section 5.10.3). The Municipal Development Plan defines environmentally sensitive areas to include areas that are generally unsuitable for development due to the presence of excessive or unstable slopes, the potential for erosion or flooding, or contain sensitive ecological habitat such as lakeshores, rivers and other water courses, river valleys, forests and vegetation, unique topographic features, environmentally hazardous lands, and important wildlife habitat and corridors. Management objectives in the County of Northern Lights include ensuring that environmentally sensitive areas (including wildlife habitat corridors) are protected from development activity. Applications for Development permits within the County of Northern Lights will be evaluated for, among other factors, environmental factors, including the potential for erosion, flooding, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, or watercourse contamination (County of Northern Lights 2010). Environmental stewardship objectives outlined in the Mackenzie County Municipal Development Plan include, among others, protection of wildlife, waterfowl staging areas, lakes, river shore-lands, valley slopes, unique topographic features and vegetative types which may be considered environmentally sensitive (Mackenzie County 2009).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Cranberry Section is located within Clear Hills County. Developments within the County are controlled by the Land Use Bylaw which encourages the retention of agricultural land, while allowing for commercial and industrial growth. The Land Use Bylaw refers to the policies outlined in the Clear Hills County General Municipal Plan for development in critical wildlife and prime protection zones (Clear Hills County 2010). The Municipal Development Plan for the County identifies preservation and enhancement of wildlife as one of the goals for the County. In order to achieve the goal of protection and enhancement of the natural environment, the Municipal Development Plan states the County should identify and take measures to conserve key wildlife habitat and unique natural resource areas (Municipal District of Clear Hills No. 21 Council and the Mackenzie Municipal Services Agency 1999).

5.10.2 Existing Habitat Disturbance Clearing of vegetation, the creation of linear corridors, facilities and/or infrastructure and sensory disturbance associated with development and resource use have affected the historical distribution and movement of wildlife. A brief summary of habitat disturbance arising from past and current land uses is

Page 5-48

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 provided below. Refer to Section 7.0 of this ESA for further explanation of existing land use in each Wildlife RSA and disturbance related to wildlife habitat.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Habitat alteration as a result of resource extraction in the Wildlife RSA is primarily related to oil and gas development. The Sierra Yoyo Desan (SYD) Road is located approximately 5.2 km west of the pipeline start point at KPK 0. Energy developments including seismic lines, roads, pipelines, well sites, and other facilities occur more frequently in the western portions of the Wildlife RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Habitat alteration as a result of resource extraction in the Wildlife RSA of the Timberwolf Section is limited. Existing developments include seismic lines, pipelines, roads, and well sites related to oil and gas development. The existing land use features within the Wildlife RSA of the Timberwolf Section are located primarily west of the provincial border.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Extensive fires are common in the boreal forest, interrupting successional sequences and producing landscape-level mosaics in forest maturity that include regenerating, immature and late successional stands (i.e., mature and old growth forest) (Johnson et al. 1995). The eastern segment of the proposed pipeline loop from KPC 0 to KPC 20 is located within an area burned in 1980 and is characterized by regenerating early seral forests. The portion of the proposed pipeline loop west of approximately KPC 27 was burned in a forest fire in 1950 and the forest habitat has regenerated to a mid-seral stage.

Habitat alteration as a result of resource extraction in the Wildlife RSA of the Cranberry Section is primarily related to oil and gas development. Forest harvesting activity in the area is limited. Energy developments including seismic lines, roads, pipelines, well sites, and other facilities occur along the proposed pipeline loop.

5.10.3 Provincially Identified Wildlife Areas A summary of provincially identified wildlife areas in relation to the proposed pipeline loops is provided below.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Kyklo Creek Section does not traverse any provincially identified Ungulate Winter Range (UWR), Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA), caribou range or caribou core habitat (BC MOE 2011b,c, BC MOE 2008). The Snake-Sahtaneh caribou range is located approximately 1.4 km west of KP 0.0 (BC MOE 2008). The proposed pipeline loop is located within a Wood Bison Management Zone that covers northeastern BC and extends into Alberta (Harper et al. 2000). This loop is not located within an identified wood bison range. Wood bison herds in the area include the Hay-Zama herd located within the Hay-Zama Wildlife Provincial Park in Alberta (approximately 87 km west of KP 29.1) and the Etthithun herd located near Etthithun Lake (approximately 90 km to the south). Wood bison from the Hay-Zama herd are expanding their range as the population increases (Mitchell and Gates 2002), and are reported to wander into the Hay River drainage in BC during summer (BC MWLAP 2002). Bison tracks were observed near Kyklo Creek in proximity to the Kyklo Creek Section during field studies conducted along the existing Ekwan Pipeline for that project in 2003 (AXYS 2003c).

Provincial records indicate two adult trumpeter swans were identified on an unnamed watercourse located approximately 400 m south of the proposed pipeline loop near KP 1.0 (Breault and Shisko 2007, Ducks Unlimited and Canadian Wildlife Service 2005). The least risk timing window for trumpeter swans is April 1 to July 31 (critical) and to August 31 (cautionary). Development activities are not recommended during this period (BC MOE 2010e).

The Kyklo Creek Section is not located within any Park or Protected Areas. The nearest Protected Area is the Ekwan Lake Protected Area located approximately 15.3 km southwest of KPK 29.1 (BC MOE 2011d).

Page 5-49

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

The Kyklo Creek Section is located within Management Unit (MU) 7-56. A moose inventory in MUs 7-55 and 7-56 was completed by the BC MWLAP in February 2004. The results of the 2004 survey found the overall density of moose in the area was 0.087 moose/km². The results of the 2004 survey indicated there had been little or no change in the overall moose population estimate for MUs 7-55 and 7-56 in the previous 15 years. Overall, the 2004 survey concluded that there was a stable moose population in MUs 7-55 and 7-56 although it was below the carrying capacity of the habitat. Given the high density of wolves in the area, the moose population may be limited by predation (Backmeyer 2004).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Timberwolf Section is located within the Chinchaga caribou range between KPT 22.7 and KPT 49.8 (ASRD 2007). The Chinchaga caribou range (approximately 17,517 km²) contains an estimated population of approximately 250 caribou (ASRD and Alberta Conservation Association 2010). The eastern edge of the Etthithun Core Area for caribou is located in BC approximately 950 m west of the proposed pipeline loop between approximately KPT 39.5 and KPT 49.8. An "early in/early out" approach for development activities is recommended in caribou ranges in Alberta and involves initiating activities as early as possible in the winter and working expeditiously to limit late winter activities. ASRD also recommends that development activities be scheduled outside the critical spring period for caribou (generally mid-March to mid-July) (Government of Alberta 2010a).

The proposed pipeline loop traverses a Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone associated with the Hay River between KPT 3.5 and KPT 7.1 (ASRD 2010b). Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones include ungulate winter ranges, river corridors and biodiversity areas where species tend to concentrate. The Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone has an RAP of January 15 to April 30 (Government of Alberta 2010b).

A short segment of the south end of the proposed pipeline loop (KPT 43.8 and KPT 49.8) is located within a Grizzly Bear Secondary Zone (Government of Alberta 2010b). The desired outcome of a Grizzly Bear Zone is to reduce all sources of human-caused mortality, reduce human-bear conflicts, avoid development within key habitats (local and landscape scales) during key seasons and avoid development of grizzly bear attractants (Government of Alberta 2010c). Information for grizzly bear (Resource Selection Function [RSF] models) is available only between KPT 46 to KPT 49.8. The models indicate there is a low probability of grizzly bear occurrence in the spring, with higher levels of occurrence in summer and fall (Foothills Research Institute [FRI] 2009).

The Timberwolf Section is located within a Bison Management Zone that extends from the Northwest Territories to south of High Level, Alberta. The government of Alberta created the Bison Management Zone (approximately 40,350 km²) in the northwest corner of the province to manage the Hay Zama wood bison herd (Mitchell and Gates 2002). The Bison Management Zone also extends into BC. The proposed pipeline loop is not located within the mapped range of any known bison herds. The population size and range of the Hay-Zama bison herd is expanding and bison from this herd are reported to wander into the Hay River drainage (BC MWLAP 2002). ASRD manages the Hay-Zama herd with a legal hunt to maintain the population size between 400 and 600 animals and to limit their distribution (Government of Alberta 2010d). The Etthithun bison herd located near Etthithun Lake is located approximately 25 km southeast from KPT 49.8. Bison from this herd are known to travel south along the Fontas Road in BC (Rowe and Backmeyer 2006).

There are no provincially identified trumpeter swan breeding lakes or important staging waterbodies within 800 m of the proposed pipeline loop (ASRD 2009c, 2010b). Trumpeter swan breeding lakes have a setback for development (i.e., roads, wells, pipelines, etc.) of 500 m from the bed and shore on identified waterbodies and/or watercourses, in addition no activities shall occur within an 800 m buffer of a breeding lake within the RAP of April 1 to September 30 (Government of Alberta 2010b). The nearest provincially identified trumpeter swan breeding waterbody is in the Zama Lake area (9-28-96-8 W6M and 12-3-109-12 W6M) located approximately 47 km northeast of KP 0 (ASRD 2010b).

The Timberwolf Section is not located within or adjacent to a Park or Protected Area (ATPR 2010). A short segment of the proposed pipeline loop traverses the western boundary an Environmentally Significant Area (No. 548) near KPT 26.8 (ATPR 2009). Environmentally Significant Area No. 548 is identified as provincially significant and is scattered throughout northern Alberta. It totals 777,225.5 ha in

Page 5-50

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 size and contains large natural areas, important wildlife habitat for boreal woodland caribou and sites of recognized significance.

The Timberwolf Section is located within WMUs 536 and 524. An inventory of moose in WMU 536 was completed by ASRD in December 2009. The results of the 2009 survey found that the overall density of moose in the area was 0.12 moose/km² (Moyles 2010). A moose inventory in WMU 524 was completed by ASRD in February 2005. The results of the 2005 survey found that the overall density of moose in the area was 0.22 moose/km2 (Moyles and Johnson 2010). The current population of moose in WMUs 536 and 524 is considered to be stable (Moyles pers. comm.).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The portion of the Cranberry Section between KPC 26.4 and KPC 32.5 is located within the Chinchaga caribou range (ASRD 2007, 2010b). There are no Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zones along the proposed pipeline loop (ASRD 2010b).

The entire length of this loop is located within a Grizzly Bear Secondary Zone (ASRD 2010b). RSF models show the probability of grizzly bear occurrence is moderate in spring, high in summer and low in fall (FRI 2009).

The Cranberry Section is located within a Bison Management Zone; however, it is not located within the mapped range of any known bison herds (see Timberwolf Section above for details).

There are no provincially identified trumpeter swan breeding lakes or important staging waterbodies within 800 m of this proposed pipeline loop (ASRD 2009c, 2010b). The nearest provincially identified trumpeter swan breeding waterbody is an oxbow of the Chinchaga River located approximately 5.4 km southwest of KPC 32.2 (ASRD 2010b).

The Cranberry Section is not located within a Park, Protected Area or Environmentally Significant Area (ATPR 2009, 2010).

The proposed pipeline loop is located within WMU 524. A moose inventory in WMU 524 was completed by ASRD in February 2005. The results of the 2005 survey found that the overall density of moose in the area was 0.22 moose/km2 (Moyles and Johnson 2010). The current population of moose in WMU 524 is considered to be stable (Moyles pers. comm.).

5.10.4 Wildlife Species with Special Conservation Status Wildlife species with special conservation status include those with provincial status designations (e.g., listed under the BC or Alberta Provincial Wildlife Act, Red/Blue listed in BC; At Risk or May Be At Risk in Alberta; Priority 1 or 2 under the BC Conservation Framework), and those listed on Schedule 1 of SARA or by COSEWIC (2011c). Species with potential to occur in the Upper and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion of Alberta and the BWBS BGC Zone within the Fort Nelson Forest District of BC were evaluated to determine which species potentially occur along the proposed pipeline loops based on range, habitat requirements, consultation with provincial and federal regulators and professional knowledge. The complete wildlife species lists are provided in provided in Appendix 5 of this ESA. Table 5.18 below provides a summary of wildlife species with conservation status that have ranges overlapping the proposed pipeline loops and/or that were observed during the field work, or identified as a species of interest during consultation with provincial and federal regulators. Refer to Appendix 5 of this ESA for a description of the preferred habitats of these species and definitions of the status designations. There are eleven wildlife species with SARA Schedule 1 or COSEWIC status designations that may occur along the proposed pipeline loops (Table 5.18). A brief summary of habitat requirements for each of these species follows (refer to Appendix 5 for additional details).

The BC CDC did not report any wildlife occurrence records within 2 km of the Kyklo Creek Section (BC CDC 2011). The ASRD FWMIS records indicate observations of woodland caribou within 2 km of the Timberwolf Section, and records of both grizzly bear and woodland caribou within 2 km of the Cranberry Section (ASRD 2010b).

Page 5-51

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.18

POTENTIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH SPECIAL CONSERVATION STATUS ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOPS1

Alberta Common Name Kyklo Creek Timberwolf Cranberry BC Designations Designations Federal Designations MAMMALS fisher 9 9 9 S2S32, Sensitive6 --- Blue2 Priority 2, Goal 34 grizzly bear, 9 9 9 S32, S32, Special Concern7 northwestern Blue2 Threatened5, population Priority 2, Goal 24 At Risk6 least weasel 9 9 9 S3S52, ------Blue2 northern myotis 9 9 9 S2S32, ------Blue2 Priority 2, Goal 34 wolverine 9 9 9 S32, S3 (W)2, Special Concern7 Blue2 May Be at Risk6 Priority 2, Goal 24 wood bison 9 9 9 S22, S1 (T)2, Threatened7,8 Red2 Endangered5, Priority 1, Goals 1,34 At Risk6 woodland caribou, Not in Range 9 9 S22, S2 (T)2, Threatened7,8 boreal population Red2 Threatened5, Priority 1, Goal 34 At Risk6 BIRDS American bittern 9 9 9 S3B2, S3S4 (W)2, --- Blue2 Sensitive6 Priority 2, Goal 24 Baltimore oriole 9 9 Priority 2, Goal 2 Sensitive6 --- barn swallow 9 9 9 S3S4B2, Sensitive6 --- Blue2 Priority 2, Goal 24 barred owl 9 9 9 --- S3S4 (W)2, --- Special Concern5, Sensitive6 bay-breasted warbler 9 9 9 S2B2, S3 (W)2, --- Red2 Sensitive6 Priority 2, Goal 34 black-throated green 9 9 9 S3B2, S3S42, --- warbler Blue3 Special Concern5, Priority 1, Goal 24 Sensitive6 Canada warbler 9 9 9 S3S4B2, Sensitive6 Threatened7,8 Blue3 Priority 2, Goal 24 Cape May warbler 9 9 9 S2B2, S2B (T)2, --- Red3 Special Concern5, Priority 2, Goal 34 Sensitive6 common nighthawk 9 9 9 Priority 2, Goal 24 Sensitive6 Threatened7,8

Connecticut warbler 9 9 9 S2B2, ------Red3 Priority 2, Goal 34 horned grebe 9 9 9 --- S32, Special Concern7 Sensitive6 Le Conte's sparrow 9 9 9 S3S4B2, ------Blue3

Page 5-52

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.18 Cont'd

Alberta Common Name Kyklo Creek Timberwolf Cranberry BC Designations Designations Federal Designations olive-sided flycatcher 9 9 9 S3S4B2, May Be at Risk6 Threatened7,8 Blue3 Priority 2, Goal 2 rusty blackbird 9 9 9 S3S4B1, Sensitive6 Special Concern7,8 Blue3 Priority 2, Goal 24 short-eared owl 9 9 9 S3B,S2N2, S3 (W)2, Special Concern7 Blue3 May Be at Risk6 Priority 2, Goal 24 surf scoter 9 9 9 S3B,S4N2, ------Blue3 Priority 2, Goal 34 Swainson's hawk 9 9 9 S2B2, Sensitive6 --- Red3 Priority 2, Goal 34 trumpeter swan 9 9 9 --- S3B (T)2, --- Threatened5, At Risk6 white-winged scoter 9 9 9 --- Special Concern3, --- Sensitive6 yellow rail Not in Range Not in Range 9 S1B2, S2B (T)2 Special Concern7,8 Red3 Priority 1, Goal 34 Sources: ACIMS 2010b, Alberta Natural Heritage Information System (ANHIC) 2009, ASRD 2009d, 2011, Banfield 1974, BC Breeding Bird Atlas 2011, BC CDC 2010b, 2011, Campbell et al. 1990, COSEWIC 2010, 2011c, Environment Canada 2011f, Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007, Matsuda et al. 2006, NatureServe 2010, Russell and Bauer 1993, Semenchuk 1992, Smith 1993, Stebbins 1966 Notes: 1. Species potentially occurs along the proposed pipeline loops based on range, habitat requirements, consultation with provincial and federal regulators, and professional knowledge. 2. Provincial (S) ranks are assigned by the provincial and federal Conservation Data Centre(s). Ranks from 1 (five or fewer occurrences) to 3 (rare and uncommon or found in a restricted range) are presented. 3. BC Provincial List (BC CDC 2010b). Only Red and Blue list designations are displayed. 4. BC Conservation Framework Priority 1 and 2 species and the goal(s) assigned (BC MOE 2009a,b). 5. Alberta's Wildlife Act. 6. Status designation assigned in the General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2010 (ASRD 2011). 'At Risk' and 'May Be At Risk' status designations are included. 'Sensitive' species are only included in this summary table if they are otherwise designated as a species of conservation concern (e.g., Wildlife Act; Red/Blue listed or Priority 1 or 2 in BC; listed by COSEWIC or Schedule 1 of the SARA). Refer to Appendix 4 of this ESA for further information regarding Sensitive species. 7. Species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern by COSEWIC (2010). 8. Species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern under Schedule 1 of the SARA.

Habitat Requirements for SARA Schedule 1 and COSEWIC Listed Wildlife Species There are seven species listed under Schedule 1 of the SARA and COSEWIC that have potential to occur along some portion of the proposed loops: wood bison; woodland caribou; Canada warbler; common nighthawk; olive-sided flycatcher; rusty blackbird; and yellow rail. Four additional species potentially occurring along the loops are listed only under COSEWIC: horned grebe; short-eared owl; grizzly bear; and wolverine. Habitat requirements for these species are summarized in this section.

Woodland Caribou: Terrestrial lichens are the most important food source for caribou throughout the year and are found primarily in old forests (Dzus 2001). Boreal caribou are typically found in peatland

Page 5-53

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 complexes dominated by black spruce and larch (Bradshaw et al. 1995, Hornbeck and Moyles 1995, Anderson 1999). In northern Alberta, research has shown that even in areas where small peatlands are interspersed in an upland matrix, caribou tend to select treed bogs and fens (Anderson 1999). A biophysical inventory of Chinchaga Wildland Park in Alberta found that areas mapped as treed and shrubby bog ecosite phases were identified as significant winter habitat for caribou. Upland, forested pine / lichen communities are also used by woodland caribou during years of heavy snowfall (Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2002).

The Kyklo Creek Section does not traverse a provincially recognized caribou range or caribou core habitat (BC MOE 2008). The Snake-Sahtenah caribou range is located approximately 1.4 km west of the proposed pipeline loop at KPK 0.0 (BC MOE 2008). Portions of the Timberwolf Section and Cranberry Section are located within the Chinchaga caribou range (ASRD 2007, 2010b). The Etthithun Core area is located in BC 950 m west of the Timberwolf Section. This identified core area does not extend east of the provincial border.

Grizzly Bear: Grizzly bears require a diversity of habitats in close proximity within the boundaries of large home ranges, including areas for travel, seclusion, feeding and denning. Grizzly bears are seasonally nomadic and move across the landscape as they track their preferred forage items over the course of a growing season (COSEWIC 2002, Environment Canada 2010d). Riparian forests and wetland complexes provide early spring range for vegetation since these sites green up early, while fall fruit production (berries) are important in the summer and fall. Grizzly bears occupy a wide range of habitats from low elevation valleys to upper ridges. Denning habitat is associated with aspects that are oriented to ensure a good early catchment of insulative snow cover over the den entrance (Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2002). Along the proposed pipeline loops, denning habitat is likely limited to incised north-facing slopes where these occur.

Wood Bison: Wood bison select landscapes that contain a high proportion of graminoid fens for feeding and other vegetation communities including deciduous forests, which are used for resting, ruminating and avoiding biting flies. Important habitats in the boreal forest are wetland-associated meadows, open shrublands and dry grasslands (Mitchell and Gates 2002). Wetlands are rarely used in the summer likely given the energy required to manoeuvre through the mud and are used in late summer and winter when they are dry and/or frozen (Strong and Gates 2009). All three of the proposed pipeline loops are located within a wood bison management zone.

Wolverine: Wolverines require large, undisturbed treed and treeless areas at all elevations that contain an abundance of large ungulate prey (Environment Canada 2010d). Wolverines use a wide assortment of structural stages in their day-to-day life, although mature and old forest structural stages are used predominately. “Habitat” for wolverine is not easily delineated as a set of vegetative parameters and is closely tied to the distribution and abundance of food, as well as suitable habitat/structures for denning (BC MWLAP 2004, Petersen 1997). Most studies of wolverine habitat use show little, if any, selection for habitat at the stand scale since wolverines are not small-scale habitat specialists but rather require a suite of habitat variables that occur at larger spatial scales (e.g., landscapes, regions) (BC MWLAP 2004). Wolverines exhibit selection of small-scale habitat structures for natal and maternal dens. Female wolverines locate dens in snow tunnels leading to masses of fallen trees or rocky colluvium and are generally associated with small-scale forest openings at high-elevations (BC MWLAP 2004). There is also evidence that wolverines select climax conifer forests with high crown closure in the boreal forest during winter. These dense forest stands have a buffering effect on snow depth, which allows wolverines to travel more efficiently with less energy expenditure (Wright and Ernst 2004). Potentially suitable habitat for wolverine occurs along all three proposed pipeline loops.

Canada Warbler: In northeastern BC, habitat is found on wet, unstable slopes with deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous forest with well developed shrub layers and woody debris (Campbell et al. 1990). Breeding habitat in Alberta has been described as thick stands of willow and alder along streams, dense shrubs in or near water, substantial deciduous undergrowth taller than 1.5 m and a ground slope equal or greater than 15 degrees (Semenchuk 1992). Although this type of habitat was found to be limited during the field work, the proposed pipeline loops are within the species range of Canada warbler.

Common Nighthawk: Open habitats are required for common nighthawk nesting and foraging, and can include burnt-over areas, logged or slashburned areas, woodland clearings, open forests, rocky outcrops,

Page 5-54

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 rock barrens, grasslands, pastures, peat bogs, marshes, lake shores and river banks. Nests are built on the ground (except when found on gravel rooftops), usually in the open near logs, boulders, grassy clumps and shrubs (Environment Canada 2010d, Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007, Campbell et al. 1990). Common nighthawk is most often associated with Grassland Natural Regions in Alberta where open habitats are more widespread, and found less frequently in boreal forests where treed habitats are more closed (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007). Potential habitat for common nighthawk along the proposed pipeline loops is associated with open grassy and wetland areas along portions of the existing rights-of-way and at watercourse crossings.

Horned Grebe: Although primarily associated with prairie and parkland habitats, the western population of horned grebe also inhabits boreal and subarctic zones. Horned grebes are divers, catching and eating most prey underwater but bringing larger prey (e.g., larger fish, amphibians) to the surface. Prey includes fish, crustaceans, leeches, small frogs, salamanders, tadpoles, and insects picked from the water surface and aquatic plants. Nesting ponds and lakes are found in open and forested areas, and require areas of open water and beds of emergent vegetation that provides nest materials, concealment and anchorage, and protection for young. Size of breeding ponds vary, however, horned grebe most often select small, shallow ponds (0.3 ha to 2 ha). This makes them vulnerable to changes in water quality near breeding sites, since these small water bodies are sensitive to eutrophication, drainage and drought (COSEWIC 2009). Potentially suitable habitat for horned grebe is associated with wetlands such as beaver ponds that are along and adjacent to the Kyklo Creek and Timberwolf Sections. There are no suitable breeding ponds along the Cranberry Section Footprint, though potentially suitable habitat occurs within the Wildlife LSA.

Olive-sided Flycatcher: Olive-sided flycatcher is typically associated with forest openings (e.g., fens, bogs, swamps, logged areas, burned forest), forest edges (e.g., near wetlands) or open forest stands. Tall trees or snags are essential for foraging (perches) and nesting. In the boreal forest of western Canada, suitable olive-sided flycatcher habitat is more likely to occur in or near wetlands and in young forest associated with burns and clear-cuts that contain residual live trees (COSEWIC 2007). Potentially suitable habitat for olive-sided flycatcher is associated with wetlands (i.e., treed fens, shrubby fens and treed bogs) that are encountered by the proposed pipeline loops as well as the regenerating forest (previously burned) between KPC 0.0 and KPC 19.8 along the Cranberry Section.

Rusty Blackbird: Rusty blackbirds nest in boreal forest wetlands near open water (Smithsonian 2011) and preferentially select flooded woodland margins of beaver ponds for both nesting and foraging (Campbell et al. 1990). Nesting habitat can include forest wetlands, such as slow-moving streams, peat bogs, sedge meadows, marshes, swamps, beaver ponds and pasture edges (COSEWIC 2006, Environment Canada 2010d). Rusty blackbirds rely heavily on adults and aquatic larvae of wetland insects as their primary food source (Smithsonian 2011). All three of the proposed pipeline loops are within known rusty blackbird species range and have potentially suitably habitat along the loops.

Short-eared Owl: Short-eared owls are typically associated with open habitats that support cyclic small mammal populations (e.g., voles [Microtus spp.]), including grasslands, clear-cuts, bogs, marshes, old pastures and occasionally agricultural fields (Clayton 2000, COSEWIC 2008, Environment Canada 2010d, BC MWLAP 2004). Nests are usually located on a raised dry site concealed by low vegetation, although wet areas may also be used (BC MWLAP 2004). Roosts may be used year after year; however, nest site fidelity is not strong, presumably because this species is nomadic (BC MWLAP 2004). Prey availability is usually the proximate factor that determines breeding locales. A high correlation between short-eared owl abundance and peaks in vole population cycles has been documented. Observation records suggest the northern limit of breeding in northwest Alberta to be Peace River; however, reliable sources report short-eared owls occurring throughout the province. Insufficient sampling is suggested as the likely reason for the few records of short-eared owls in northern Alberta (Clayton 2000). Short-eared owl is reported to breed in the Peace Lowlands of BC, most often associated with agricultural areas and wetland edges (BC MWLAP 2004). Potential habitat for short-eared owls along the proposed loops may occur in open grassy and wetland habitats, and along the existing pipeline rights-of-way.

Yellow Rail: Yellow rail breeding habitat is characterized by wetlands (e.g., fens) dominated by sedges, grasses and rushes where there is little or no standing water (generally 0-12 cm water depth), and where the substrate remains saturated throughout the summer (Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007, Environment Canada 2010d). Other suitable habitat types include damp fields and meadows, floodplains

Page 5-55

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 of rivers and streams and in the herbaceous vegetation of bogs (Environment Canada 2010d). Shallow wetlands dominated by graminoid species are of limited availability along the proposed loops. Most wetlands crossed by the proposed pipeline loops have a high shrub and/or tree component, which is not characteristic of typical yellow rail breeding habitat.

5.10.5 Summary of Wildlife Results A desktop/literature review and field work was conducted for the proposed pipeline loops. The purpose of the desktop/literature review and the field work was to identify important wildlife habitats along the proposed pipeline loops and, where warranted, recommend site-specific mitigation to avoid or reduce potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The results from the field work are summarized in this section. Recommended supplemental surveys are discussed in Section 9 and Appendix 5 of this ESA.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Preliminary aerial overflights of the Kyklo Creek Section were conducted on March 16 and 17, 2009 and July 25 and 26, 2009 to assist with Project planning and routing. A winter field survey was conducted on February 2 and 3, 2011. The winter field survey included an aerial ungulate survey along the entire length of the proposed pipeline loop and a winter track count survey on the ground to provide an indication of wildlife distribution, identify which species are active in the area, as well as species of importance to Aboriginal communities. Details of the field methods are presented in Appendix 5 of this ESA.

Habitat This proposed pipeline loop traverses forested land for 100% of its length. Terrain is generally level to undulating along this loop. The proposed pipeline loop crosses two watercourses, including one named watercourse (Kyklo Creek), as well as two fish-bearing non-classified drainages (NCDs) (refer to Section 5.7 for further details on fish and fish habitat).

Habitat types traversed by the proposed pipeline loop have been classified and delineated by vegetation community (Section 5.9 above and Appendix 4 of this ESA). This proposed pipeline loop traverses approximately 10.6 km (37%) of upland habitat, which is characterized primarily by aspen dominated deciduous and mixedwood stands (35% of the length) with a small portion (2%) of white spruce dominated coniferous and mixedwood stands. Deciduous and mixedwood forest stands primarily consist of trembling aspen, with white spruce being the primary subdominant species. Balsam poplar and paper birch occur in moister areas. Dominant understory vegetation includes prickly rose, bunchberry and feather mosses. Approximately 18.6 km (63%) of the proposed loop length is characterized by wetland habitat. Swamps comprise the main wetland types encountered along this loop (48% of the length). Peatlands (bog and fens) represent 15% of the length of the pipeline loop. Refer to Section 5.8 for further descriptions of wetland classifications.

Mammals Moose and moose sign were generally observed in upland deciduous and mixedwood forests and riparian areas containing browse. Moose sign (e.g., tracks, pellets, browse, beds) were observed along and adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop in all habitat types. No ungulates were observed during the March 2009 and July 2009 overflights. A total of 10 moose, including 6 adults and 4 calves, were observed along and adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop and several additional moose were observed incidentally within the Wildlife RSA during the February 2 and 3, 2011 field work. No other ungulates were observed in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline loop. Game trails were commonly observed in the area. No mineral licks were identified within or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop.

Tracks of seven carnivore species were documented along and adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop in March 2009 and February 2011, including Canada lynx, ermine, red fox, gray wolf, mink, marten, and wolverine. During the February 2 and 3, 2011 survey, a pack of four wolves was observed running along a snowmobile trail on the existing Ekwan Section pipeline right-of-way between KPK 5.3 and KPK 5.7. A mink was observed along Kyklo Creek near KPK 21.0. One set of wolverine tracks was observed along the edge of a winter road adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop between KPK 27.0 and KPK 27.3. One carnivore species, American black bear (tracks), was documented in the area in July 2009 along Kyklo Creek near KPK 21.0. No grizzly bears or obvious grizzly bear sign was observed during this time. No

Page 5-56

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 active or recently used mammal dens were identified within or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop.

Evidence of four small mammal species was documented, including: snowshoe hare (tracks); red squirrel (visual, tracks, nest); vole (tracks, trails); and shrew (tracks, trails). Snowshoe hare tracks were observed along the length of the proposed pipeline loop in both March 2009 and February 2011.

Beaver activity has created small ponds and wetlands, as well as larger wetland complexes in five locations along this proposed pipeline loop (refer to Appendix 3 for further details).

Birds A northern goshawk was observed near KPK 22.4 in March 2009. No other raptor species or obvious stick nests were identified within or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop. Passerine species observed along the proposed pipeline loop during the field visits included black-capped chickadee, boreal chickadee, common raven, gray jay, pine grosbeak, red-eyed vireo, white-throated sparrow, and yellow-bellied sapsucker.

Although no waterfowl or shorebirds were observed in July 2009, this proposed pipeline loop crosses and lies adjacent to watercourses and beaver ponds that contain open water with emergent vegetation suitable for nesting waterfowl and shorebirds. No trumpeter swans were observed during the aerial overflight of wetlands and lakes located on and adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop in July 2009. The nearest trumpeter swans were observed 23.5 km east of the proposed pipeline loop along the Hay River.

Evidence of willow ptarmigan and grouse (tracks) were observed along this proposed pipeline loop in March 2009 and February 2011. In July 2009, eight ruffed grouse were observed near KPK 20.9 in deciduous forest (trembling aspen, willow) north of Kyklo Creek and two spruce grouse were observed near KPK 29.1 in February 2011.

Amphibians One amphibian species (wood frog) was observed at Kyklo Creek (KPK 21.0) in July 2009. Several watercourses, beaver ponds and wetlands that contain open standing water occur along the proposed pipeline loop. These habitats may provide suitable breeding habitat for wood frog and boreal chorus frog.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Wildlife field work was conducted along this proposed pipeline loop on October 13, 20, 22 and 23, 2010 and on January 23 to 25, 2011. The October field work provided NGTL with preliminary wildlife considerations in regards to the alignment of the proposed pipeline loop in the early planning stages. Additionally, it provided the opportunity to identify land use, habitat types and potential habitat suitability for species with special conservation status and importance to Aboriginal communities, as well as to document evidence of wildlife use and identify wildlife habitat features that may be impacted by Project construction and/or operation. A winter field survey was conducted on January 23 to 25, 2011. The winter field survey included an aerial ungulate survey along the entire length of the proposed pipeline loop and a winter track count survey on the ground to provide an indication of wildlife distribution, identify which species are active in the area as well as species of importance to Aboriginal communities. Details of the field methods are presented in Appendix 5 of this ESA.

Habitat The Timberwolf Section traverses forested land for 100% of its length. Terrain is generally level to undulating with moderate slopes encountered at selected watercourse crossings (i.e., Little Buffalo River, Chasm Creek). This proposed pipeline loop crosses 14 watercourses, including 6 named watercourses (Hay River, Little Buffalo River, Bivouac Creek, Chasm Creek, Beaverskin Creek and Snowfall Creek). Nine of these watercourses have been influenced by beavers and are classified as fish-bearing beaver dam complexes, including Bivouac Creek, Beaverskin Creek and Snowfall Creek. A total of two nonfish- bearing undefined drainages that lacked defined bed and banks were also identified along this proposed pipeline loop (refer to Section 5.7 for further details on fish and fish habitat).

Page 5-57

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Habitat types traversed by the Timberwolf Section have been classified and delineated by vegetation community (Ecosite Phase) (Section 5.9 above and Appendix 4 of this ESA). This proposed pipeline loop traverses approximately 22 km (44%) of upland habitat. Deciduous and mixedwood forests (approximately 36% of the length of this loop) are typically dominated by a canopy of aspen or white spruce. Where mixedwood forests occur, canopies may also be characterized with co-dominant or subdominant components of white birch, white spruce, and/or jack pine. Understory vegetation includes prickly rose, Canada buffaloberry, bunchberry, bishop’s-cap, wild sarsaparilla and tall lungwort. Coniferous forests (approximately 8% of the length of this loop) are primarily dominated by black spruce and jack pine. Moister stands are typically transitional from upland forests to organic-based wetlands including bogs and fens. Similarly, mesic to dry sites are often transitional from mixedwood forests to pine dominated coniferous forests. The understory is frequently dominated by common Labrador tea, bunchberry, palmate-leaved coltsfoot and blueberry species. Mosses typically dominate ground cover in moist sites whereas drier communities exhibit a higher ground cover of lichen species (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). Approximately 56% of this loop traverses wetlands, including emergent marshes, shallow open water, graminoid fens, shrubby fens, treed bogs, treed fens and treed swamps. Peatlands (bogs and fens) comprise most of the wetland types encountered (approximately 52% of the length of this loop). Swamps are less than 2% and marshes/open water wetlands are less than 3% of the length of this loop. Refer to Section 5.8 for further descriptions of wetland classifications.

Mammals Ungulates and their sign (e.g., tracks, pellets, browse, beds) observed in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop during the October 2010 and January 2011 field work were moose, deer, wood bison and woodland caribou. Moose sign was observed along the length of the proposed pipeline loop, particularly in deciduous and mixedwood forests and near riparian areas containing browse (i.e., watercourses, shrubby wetlands). In October 2010, a bull moose was observed at the Hay River crossing near KPT 5.4. Deer tracks were observed adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop near KPT 0.3.

In October 2010, wood bison were observed along the existing Northwest Mainline right-of-way near KPT 5.4 and near KPT 46.3 (tracks), on an existing lease site located approximately 31.2 km south of the proposed pipeline loop (45 wood bison), and along the existing Northwest Mainline right-of-way to the south of the proposed pipeline loop (tracks). A herd of approximately 75 wood bison were observed incidentally in an open meadow clearing located approximately 42 km southwest of this proposed pipeline loop in February 2011.

The portion of the Timberline Section between KPT 22.7 and KPT 49.8 is located within the Chinchaga caribou range. No caribou were observed along the proposed pipeline loop in October 2010 or during the winter 2011 field survey; however, tracks of woodland caribou were observed near KPT 46.2 and five woodland caribou were observed approximately 12 km south of this proposed pipeline loop in October 2010. Five woodland caribou were also observed approximately 63 km south/southeast of this proposed pipeline loop during the winter 2011 field survey. Caribou and caribou sign was most commonly observed in black spruce (treed bog) habitat. Lichen (Cladina sp.) was observed along the length of the proposed pipeline loop, most often in association with treed bogs.

Tracks of seven carnivore species were documented along and adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop during the field work, including: black bear (scat, tracks, scratch trees, diggings), gray wolf (tracks), fisher (tracks), mink (tracks), ermine (tracks, scat), marten (tracks, scat), and Canada lynx (tracks). Black bears are common in the area and black bear sign was observed along the proposed pipeline loop in all habitat types. No grizzly bears or obvious grizzly bear sign was observed during the field work.

In October 2010, tracks of gray wolf, ermine, fisher, and mink were observed along the Hay River near KPT 5.4. Tracks and scat of mink and ermine were observed in mixedwood forest near KPT 0.0. In January 2011, tracks of Canada lynx were observed along the length of this proposed pipeline loop in all habitat types. Tracks of mustelid species (i.e., marten and/or fisher as well as ermine) were also observed along the length of this proposed pipeline loop, most often in association with riparian areas and in black spruce forest (treed bog and treed fen). Fisher tracks were observed along the Hay River near KPT 5.4 and along the Little Beaver River near KPT 21.5. An old set of gray wolf tracks was also observed near KPT 21.5.

Page 5-58

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Small mammals and their sign (i.e., tracks, scat, trails, middens) observed during the field work include snowshoe hare (tracks), red squirrel (visual, tracks, middens), vole (tracks, trails), and shrew (tracks, trails). Snowshoe hare tracks were observed along the length of the proposed pipeline loop in January 2011, most often in association with mixedwood and shrubby fen habitats. Red squirrel and their sign were observed in forests containing spruce. Vole and shrew species were observed in grassy habitats, such as the existing Northwest Mainline Loop and near wetlands.

Beaver activity has created numerous small ponds, and wetlands, as well as larger wetland complexes and several active beaver lodges were identified during the field work. Refer to Appendix 5 of this ESA for details of beaver activity recorded along this loop.

Game trails were observed in all habitat types along the proposed pipeline loop, most often in association with watercourses (e.g., Hay River) and along transition zones between upland and low-lying habitats. Game trails were observed along the existing Northwest Mainline right-of-way. No mineral licks or active or recently used mammal dens were identified within or immediately adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop.

Birds A bald eagle was observed along Chasm Creek near KPT 29.6 in October 2010. No other raptor species were observed and no obvious stick nests were identified within or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop during the field work. Passerine species observed in October 2010 include black-capped chickadee, Bohemian waxwing, common raven, gray jay and snow bunting. Evidence of pileated woodpecker (work on trees) was observed near KPT 24.8.

The Timberwolf Section crosses watercourses, beaver ponds and wetlands that contain open water with emergent vegetation suitable for nesting waterfowl. These areas also provide potentially suitable nesting and breeding habitat for several species of shorebird. The October 2010 field work was conducted during the fall migration and trumpeter swans, both with and without cygnets, were observed in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline loop. Two trumpeter swans with cygnets were observed along Beaverskin Creek near KP 34.8, which has been ponded by beaver activity.

In January 2011, a spruce grouse was observed near KPT 26.7 and two spruce grouse were observed near KPT 47.8. Tracks of grouse were observed frequently along the existing Northwest Mainline right-of- way in open areas containing scattered low regenerating willow. Other upland game bird species expected to occur include sharp-tailed grouse and ruffed grouse.

Amphibians No amphibians were observed during the field work, which is expected given the time of year. Several watercourses, beaver ponds and wetlands that contain open standing water occur along this proposed pipeline loop. These habitats may provide suitable breeding habitat for wood frog and boreal chorus frog.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Wildlife field work was conducted along this proposed pipeline loop on October 13 to 16, 2010 and on January 23, 26 and 27, 2011. The October field work provided the opportunity to provide feedback on the alignment of the proposed pipeline loop in the early planning stages. Additionally, it provided the opportunity to identify land use, habitat types and potential habitat suitability for species with special conservation status and importance to Aboriginal communities, as well as to document evidence of wildlife use and identify wildlife habitat features that may be impacted by Project construction and/or operation. A winter field survey was conducted on January 23, 26 and 27, 2011. The winter field survey included and aerial ungulate survey along the entire length of the proposed pipeline loop and a winter track count survey on the ground to provide an indication of wildlife distribution, identify which species are active in the area as well as species of importance to Aboriginal communities. Details of the field methods are presented in Appendix 5 of this ESA.

Habitat The Cranberry Section traverses forested land for 100% of its length. Terrain is generally level to gently rolling with some moderate slopes encountered along segments from approximately KPC 0.4 to KPC 0.9

Page 5-59

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 and KPC 20.0 to KPC 23.0. This proposed pipeline loop crosses 3 watercourses, including 2 named watercourses (Sloat Creek and Starvation Creek), and 1 fish-bearing headwater drainage. A total of 13 nonfish-bearing undefined drainages that lacked defined bed and banks were also identified along this proposed pipeline loop (refer to Section 5.7 for further details on fish and fish habitat).

Habitat types traversed by the proposed pipeline loop have been classified and delineated by vegetation community (Ecosite Phase) (Section 5.9 above and Appendix 4 of this ESA). The Cranberry Section traverses approximately 11.1 km (35%) of upland habitat and approximately 3.2 km (10%) of wetland habitat. The remaining 18.2 km (56%) is regenerating forest that was disturbed by a forest fire estimated to have occurred around 1980 (AENR 1970+). The burned area extends almost continuously between KPC 0.0 and KPC 19.8. Deciduous and mixedwood forests are typically dominated by a canopy of aspen or white spruce, and may include co-dominant or subdominant components of white birch, black spruce, and/or jack pine. Understory vegetation includes prickly rose, Canada buffaloberry, bunchberry, bishop’s- cap, wild sarsaparilla, and tall lungwort. Coniferous forests dominated by white spruce, black spruce and/or jack pine comprise about 14% of this loop length. Moister coniferous stands are typically transitional from upland forests to organic-based wetlands including bogs and fens. Similarly, mesic to dry sites are often transitional from mixedwood forests to pine dominated coniferous forests. The understory is frequently dominated by common Labrador tea, bunchberry, palmate-leaved coltsfoot and blueberry species. Mosses typically dominate ground cover in moist sites whereas drier communities exhibit a higher ground cover of lichen species (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). Wetland types encountered along the proposed pipeline loop include emergent marshes, shallow open water, graminoid fens, shrubby fens, treed bogs, treed fens, and treed swamps. Peatlands (bogs and fens) comprise about 7% of the length of this loop, while 3% of the loop traverses swamps. Refer to Section 5.8 for further descriptions of wetland classifications.

Mammals Ungulate sign (e.g., tracks, pellets, browse, beds) of moose, elk, and white-tailed deer were observed in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline loop in October 2010 and January 2011. Moose sign was most commonly observed in mature mixedwood forests, coniferous forests, and shrubby wetlands containing browse. Sign of white-tailed deer and elk was commonly observed in deciduous and mixedwood forests. Very little ungulate sign was observed in the burned habitat. Although the proposed pipeline loop is located within the Chinchaga caribou range between KPC 26.4 and KPC 32.5, no caribou or their sign were observed during the field work.

Game trails were commonly observed in the area (Plate 11, Appendix 5). Game trails were observed in all habitat types, most often in association with upland habitats and along transition zones between upland and low-lying habitats. In comparison with the rest of the proposed pipeline loop, game trails were observed less frequently in the burned area between KPC 0.0 and KPC 19.8. No mineral licks were identified within or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline loop.

Six carnivore species were documented in the area during the October 2010 and January 2011 field work, including American black bear, coyote, gray wolf, Canada lynx, ermine, and marten. American black bear (scat, tracks, scratch trees, diggings) and coyote (tracks, scat), were documented in the area in October 2010. Black bears are common in the area and black bear sign was observed along the proposed pipeline loop in all habitat types. No grizzly bears or obvious grizzly bear sign was observed during the field work. Coyote tracks and scat were observed near KPC 18.9. In January 2011, gray wolf tracks were observed near KPC 21.3 and two wolves were observed walking along the Chinchaga River approximately 4.3 km southwest of KP 32.2. Tracks of Canada lynx, weasel, and marten were observed infrequently along the length of the proposed pipeline loop in all habitats. Tracks of coyote were most often observed in upland forests and shrubby habitats (i.e., shrubby fen, shrubby swamp). There was little carnivore sign observed in the burned habitat between KPC 0.0 and KPC 19.8. No active or recently used mammal dens were identified within or immediately adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop.

Snowshoe hare (tracks) and red squirrel (visual, tracks) were documented. Snowshoe hare tracks were observed in high numbers along the length of the proposed pipeline loop in all habitat types, particularly in shrubby swamps containing dense willow and black spruce, as well as in the burned habitat between KPC 0.0 and KPC 19.8. Red squirrel and their sign were commonly observed in forests containing spruce. Voles and shrews can also be expected to occur along the proposed pipeline loop and the existing Tanghe Creek Loop.

Page 5-60

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

The Cranberry Section does not cross any active beaver ponds or dams. Beaver activity has created small ponds and wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline loop in two locations: south of this loop near KPC 6.4; and south of the existing Tanghe Creek Loop near KPC 8.8.

Birds A northern harrier was observed near KPC 14.9 and a rough-legged hawk was observed near KPC 11.9 in October 2010. No obvious stick nests were identified within or immediately adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop. Passerine species observed include black-capped chickadee, common raven, gray jay, pine siskin, snow bunting, and white-winged crossbill. Evidence of pileated woodpecker (work on trees) was observed near KPC 21.9 and KPC 22.9.

A non-woody fen (beaver pond) with emergent vegetation and open water, which may provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for waterfowl or shorebirds, is encountered along the proposed pipeline loop near KPC 6.4. The open water portion of this wetland is located approximately 100 m south of the Cranberry Section Footprint. The Footprint traverses a portion of the graminoid vegetation at the edges of the wetland. Potential water bird habitat is also available at a large open water wetland located within the Wildlife LSA, south of the Footprint near KPC 8.7. Other wetlands encountered along this loop have insufficient open water to provide suitable waterfowl or shorebird habitat. No waterfowl or shorebird species were observed in October 2010.

A ruffed grouse was observed near KPC 8.7 and a spruce grouse was observed near KPC 23.9 in October 2010. In January 2011, sharp-tailed grouse were observed along the existing Tanghe Creek Loop near KPC 3.5, KPC 14.2 and KPC 15.8.

Amphibians No amphibians were observed in October 2010, which is expected given the time of year. Potentially suitable breeding habitat for wood frog and boreal chorus frog occurs at watercourses and drainages crossed by this proposed loop, as well as a beaver pond (non-woody fen) south of the Footprint near KPC 6.4 and other wetlands along this loop that contain small pockets of open water (refer to Section 5.8 for additional information on wetlands traversed). A large open water wetland located within the Wildlife LSA, south of the Footprint near KPC 8.7, may also provide suitable habitat for wood frog and boreal chorus frog.

5.10.5.1 Traditional Ecological Knowledge TEK was collected in partnership between TERA and members of Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan’s First Nation. The purpose of the field work was to discuss the role of the local wildlife for local peoples and cultures, and to document traditional values and observations regarding wildlife aspects of the local and regional area. Review of TEK information with each participating Aboriginal community is ongoing.

Participants of the TEK study reported that hunting and trapping occur throughout the Project area, and Aboriginal communities have been using the area for a long time. It was noted that the entire Project area was a good hunting area for moose and duck, and good trapping land for otter, lynx, and wolverine. In addition, portions of the Project area also provide good caribou habitat.

A large number of wildlife species use the area, including moose, elk, bison, caribou, black bear, grizzly bear, grey wolf, beaver, otter, fisher, muskrat, lynx, weasel, white-tailed deer, mink, skunk, marten, snowshoe hare, trumpeter swan, sandhill crane, and several duck species. Historically, duck hunting and egg collection were important to the diets of Aboriginal people in the Project area.

Community TEK participants recognize the inter-connection of small fish in aquatic environments to waterfowl and some furbearing mammals including otter, weasel, fisher, marten, and wolverine, all of which are traditionally harvested according to season and need.

Evidence (tracks, scat and some visual observations) of the following mammal species was found along the proposed pipeline loops: moose; elk; caribou; bison; snowshoe hare; weasel; lynx; white-tailed deer; and wolf. Moose tracks were the most abundant ungulate species. Several game trails were identified

Page 5-61

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 along the proposed pipeline loops. Aboriginal community TEK participants indicated that this signifies that the area is an excellent hunting ground. Many of the mammal species observed were specifically identified by TEK participants as wildlife that are used for subsistence, economic and cultural reasons. Detailed TEK results and methods are provided in the Wildlife Report in Appendix 5 of this ESA.

Aboriginal TEK participants did not recommend any specific mitigation strategies for the Project related to wildlife or wildlife habitat.

5.10.6 Wildlife of Ecological, Human and Economic Importance All wildlife species, including those with relatively abundant local and regional populations, can be considered ecologically important since they contribute to the function of the ecosystem. For the purposes of assessment and developing mitigation to minimize potential effects of the Project, ecologically important species and habitats are considered to include those with special conservation status, and are summarized in Table 5.18 and described in Section 5.10.4 and Appendix 5 of this ESA. These wildlife species and their habitats are also considered to be of human importance since society typically places high value on species of conservation concern.

The wildlife species of human and economic importance that are likely to occur in the Willdife RSA for each of the proposed pipeline loops include those that are hunted or trapped. Species harvested within MU 7-56 (Kyklo Creek Section) include white-tailed deer, moose, elk, black bear, wolf, cougar, coyote, wolverine, lynx, snowshoe hare, spruce, ruffed and sharp-tailed grouse, coots, common snipe, ducks, and geese (BC Ministry of Natural Resources [MNRO] 2010). Within WMUs 524 and 536 in Alberta (Timberwolf and Cranberry sections), big game and game bird species harvested include white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, black bear, ruffed, spruce and sharp-tailed grouse, ptarmigan, coots, snipe, ducks, and geese (Government of Alberta 2010b). The Timberwolf and Cranberry Sections are located within Fur Management Zone 2 in Alberta, where species harvested include beaver, coyote, fisher, red fox, lynx, marten, mink, muskrat, otter, red squirrel, weasel, wolf, and wolverine (Government of Alberta 2010c).

5.11 Species at Risk There were no plant or fish species listed under SARA or having COSEWIC status identified as potentially occurring along any of the three proposed pipeline loops. As such, this subsection only identifies wildlife species listed under Schedule 1 of SARA, whose range and habitat potentially occur along the proposed pipeline loops. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to the species at risk are discussed in Section 6.2.11 of this ESA.

Wildlife species at risk with potential to occur in the Upper and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregion of Alberta and the BWBS BGC Zone within the Fort Nelson Forest District of BC were evaluated to determine which species potentially occur along the proposed pipeline loops based on range, habitat requirements, consultation with provincial and federal regulators and professional knowledge. The complete lists of wildlife species with special conservation status are provided in provided in Appendix 4 of this ESA. Based on these lists, 11 wildlife species with SARA Schedule 1 or COSEWIC status designations were identified as having potential to occur along the proposed pipeline loops (Table 5.19). A brief summary of habitat requirements for each of these species is provided in Section 5.10.4 above. At the time of application, Environment Canada had not issued recovery strategies or identified critical habitat under the SARA for any of the 11 identified wildlife species with potential to occur along the proposed pipeline loops.

Page 5-62

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.19

SUMMARY OF SARA SCHEDULE 1 AND COSEWIC LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL HABITAT ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOPS

Tanghe Creek Lateral Horn River Mainline Northwest Mainline Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Species and Status (Kyklo Creek Section) (Timberwolf Section) Section) Woodland Caribou Not located within a Located within the Chinchaga Located within the Chinchaga (Threatened on caribou range. caribou range from KPT 22.7 to caribou range between Schedule 1 of SARA No caribou or caribou sign KPT 49.8. KPC 26.4 and KPC 32.5. and by COSEWIC) was observed during the ASRD FWMIS records include ASRD FWMIS records wildlife field work. occurrences of woodland caribou include occurrences of within 1 km of this proposed woodland caribou within 1 km pipeline loop (records dated from of this proposed pipeline loop 1992 through 2001). (records dated from 1992 October 20, 2010: five woodland through 2001). caribou were observed No caribou or caribou sign approximately 12 km south of this observed during wildlife field proposed pipeline loop. work. October 20 and 22, 2010: tracks of woodland caribou were observed along the existing Northwest Mainline right-of-way near KPT 46.2 January 24, 2011: five woodland caribou were observed approximately 63 km south/southeast of this proposed pipeline loop. All observations of caribou were within the Chinchaga caribou range. Grizzly Bear No grizzly bear or grizzly Located within a Grizzly Bear Entire length located within a (Special Concern by bear sign was observed Secondary Zone from KPT 43.8 to Grizzly Bear Secondary COSEWIC) during the wildlife field KPT 49.8. Zone. work. ASRD FWMIS records indicate ASRD FWMIS records grizzly bear activity in the vicinity of indicate grizzly bear activity in the Chinchaga and South the vicinity of the Chinchaga Chinchaga rivers. and South Chinchaga rivers. No grizzly bear or grizzly bear sign No grizzly bear or grizzly bear was observed during the wildlife sign was observed during the field work. wildlife field work. Wood Bison Not located within a wood Not located within a wood bison Not located within a wood (Threatened on bison range. range. bison range. Schedule 1 of SARA No bison or bison sign was October 20, 2010, tracks of wood No bison or bison sign was and by COSEWIC) observed during the wildlife bison were observed along the observed during the wildlife field work for this Project. existing Northwest Mainline field work. Bison tracks were reported right-of-way near KPT 5.4. near Kyklo Creek during October 22, 2010, tracks of wood field surveys conducted for bison were observed along the the Ekwan Pipeline in 2003 existing Northwest Mainline (AXYS 2003c). right-of-way near KPT 46.3. October 20, 2010: a herd of 45 wood bison was observed on an existing lease located approximately 31.2 km south of this proposed pipeline loop. October 23, 2010: Fresh tracks of wood bison were observed along the existing Northwest Mainline right-of-way to the south of this proposed pipeline loop. February 7, 2011: a herd of approximately 75 wood bison was observed incidentally in an open meadow located approximately 42 km southwest of this proposed pipeline loop.

Page 5-63

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.19 Cont'd

Tanghe Creek Lateral Horn River Mainline Northwest Mainline Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Species and Status (Kyklo Creek Section) (Timberwolf Section) Section) Wolverine In February 2011, tracks of Evidence of wolverine was not Evidence of wolverine was (Special Concern by wolverine were observed observed during the wildlife field not observed during the COSEWIC) along a winter road work. wildlife field work. adjacent to this proposed Potential habitat occurs along the Potential habitat occurs along pipeline loop from length of this proposed pipeline the length of this proposed KPK 27.0 to KPK 27.3. loop. pipeline loop. Potential habitat occurs along the length of this proposed pipeline loop. Canada Warbler Forest stands containing a Forest stands containing a well Forest stands containing a (Threatened on well developed and developed and complex understory well developed and complex Schedule 1 of SARA complex understory are are limited. understory are limited. and by COSEWIC) limited. Common Nighthawk Potential habitat is Potential habitat is associated with Potential habitat is associated (Threatened on associated with open open grassy and wetland areas with open grassy and wetland Schedule 1 of SARA grassy and wetland areas along portions of the existing areas along portions of the and by COSEWIC) along portions of the Northwest Mainline right-of-way and existing Tanghe Creek Loop existing Ekwan Section at watercourse crossings. right-of-way and at pipeline right-of-way and at watercourse crossings. watercourse crossings. Horned Grebe Potential habitat is Potential habitat is associated with No potential habitat is located (Special Concern by associated with wetlands wetlands such as beaver ponds that on this proposed pipeline COSEWIC) such as beaver ponds that are along and adjacent to this loop, though may occur in are along and adjacent to proposed pipeline loop. adjacent areas. this proposed pipeline loop. Olive-sided Potential habitat is Potential habitat is associated with Potential habitat is associated Flycatcher associated with wetlands wetlands (i.e., treed fens, shrubby with wetlands (i.e., treed fens, (Threatened on (i.e., treed fens, shrubby fens and treed bogs) that are shrubby fens and treed bogs) Schedule 1 of SARA fens and treed bogs) that encountered by this proposed that are encountered by this and by COSEWIC) are encountered by this pipeline loop. proposed pipeline loop as proposed pipeline loop. well as the regenerating forest (previously burned) from KPC 0.0 to KPC 19.8. Rusty Blackbird Potential habitat is Potential habitat is associated with Potential habitat is associated (Special Concern on associated with wetlands wetlands (i.e., treed fens, shrubby with wetlands (i.e., treed fens, Schedule 1 of SARA (i.e., treed fens, shrubby fens, treed bogs, treed swamps, shrubby fens, treed bogs, and by COSEWIC) fens and treed bogs) that graminoid fens and emergent graminoid fens and shrubby are encountered by this marshes) that are encountered by swamps) that are proposed pipeline loop. this proposed pipeline loop. encountered by this proposed pipeline loop. Short-eared Owl Potential habitat is Potential habitat is associated with Potential habitat occurs along (Special Concern by associated with open open grassy and wetland habitats, this proposed pipeline loop at COSEWIC) grassy and wetland and along the existing Northwest open grassy and wetland habitats, and along the Mainline right-of-way. habitats, and along the existing Ekwan Section existing Tanghe Creek Loop. pipeline right-of-way. Yellow Rail Not located within species Not located within species range for Potential habitat is associated (Special Concern on range for yellow rail. yellow rail. with damp, open areas Schedule 1 of SARA dominated by grasses and and by COSEWIC) sedges at the margins of wetlands (i.e., graminoid fens) and along the existing Tanghe Creek right-of-way.

5.12 Human Occupancy and Resource Use This subsection summarizes the current state of human occupancy and resource use in the Socio-economic RSA (see Figure 6.7) as it pertains to population, demographics, development and land use plans, environmentally significant and protected areas, natural resource use and surface dispositions. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to human occupancy and resource use are discussed in Section 6.2.12 of this ESA.

Page 5-64

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located approximately 80 km east of Fort Nelson, BC within the NRRM. It is located within Treaty 8 Territory and is entirely on BC Crown land. The land use adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop is predominately related to oil and gas activities; however, there are trap lines, resident hunting, as well as hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering by Aboriginal people. There is no outfitting or formal recreation that occurs in the Socio-economic RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section.

Cabins can be found throughout the Horn River area and within the Socio-economic RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section (TERA 2010a). The Dene Tha' First Nation TLU report (Calliou Group 2009) identified cabin areas within the Socio-economic RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section; however, specific locations were not identified. About six permanent industrial camps are found within the Socio-economic RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section and a number of temporary industrial camps can be found at any time (Vector Geomatics 2010). During trapper consultation, no cabins were identified near this proposed pipeline loop.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located approximately 30 km southwest of Rainbow Lake and 160 km west of High Level. All lands along this proposed pipeline loop are provincial Crown land located in the Green Area of Alberta. This proposed pipeline loop is located in Mackenzie County (from KPT 0 to KPT 41.4) and the County of Northern Lights (from KPT 41.4 to KPT 49.8). This proposed pipeline loop is located within Treaty 8 Territory.

The land use adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop is predominately related to oil and gas activities; however, there are trap lines, resident hunting and outfitting, as well as hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering by Aboriginal people. No permanent industrial camps are found in the Socio-economic RSA of the Timberwolf Section (Vector Geomatics 2010). During trapper consultation, no cabins were identified near this proposed pipeline loop. Although, there are no formal recreational facilities in the Socio-economic RSA of the Timberwolf Section, the area is used by Aboriginal and resident hunters.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located approximately 76 km northwest of Manning within Clear Hills County and all lands along this pipeline loop are provincial Crown land in the Green Area of Alberta.

The land use adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop is predominately related to oil and gas activities; however, there are trap lines, resident hunting and outfitting, as well as hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering by Aboriginal people. No permanent industrial camps are found in the Socio-economic RSA of the Cranberry Section (Vector Geomatics 2010). The closest permanent industrial camp is 40 km west of the proposed pipeline loop. During trapper consultation, no cabins were identified near this proposed pipeline loop. Although there are no formal recreational facilities in the Socio-economic RSA of the Cranberry Section, the area is used by Aboriginal and resident hunters.

5.12.1 Population and Demographics Table 5.20 presents a list of communities and Aboriginal groups in the vicinity of the three proposed pipeline loops that are considered to be potentially affected by the construction and operation of the Project.

TABLE 5.20

MUNICIPALITIES AND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES CONSIDERED IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Community Distance from the Project1 Rational for Inclusion in the Social Assessment HORN RIVER MAINLINE (KYKLO CREEK SECTION) NRRM, including the town of Fort 79.7 km This proposed pipeline loop is located within the NRRM. Fort Nelson is the largest Nelson2 community close to this proposed pipeline loop and it is reasonable to expect that Project personnel will use community facilities and services. Fort Nelson First Nation Fort 66 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. Nelson IR No. 23

Page 5-65

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.20 Cont'd

Community Distance from the Project1 Rational for Inclusion in the Social Assessment Prophet River First Nation Prophet 105 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. River IR No. 43 Dene Tha' First Nation Hay Lake IR 118 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. 2093 NORTHWEST MAINLINE (TIMBERWOLF SECTION) Mackenzie County N/A About 41.1 km of this proposed pipeline loop is located in Mackenzie County. Town of High Level 160 km The largest community close to this proposed pipeline loop and it is reasonable to expect that Project personnel will use community facilities and services. High Level is located in Mackenzie County. Town of Rainbow Lake 29.7 km The closest community this proposed pipeline loop and it is reasonable to expect that Project activities will use facilities and services. Rainbow Lake is located in Mackenzie County. County of Northern Lights N/A About 8.4 km of this proposed pipeline loop is located in the County of Northern Lights. Dene Tha' First Nation Hay Lake IR 73 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. No. 2093 Beaver First Nation Boyer IR No. 208 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. 1643 Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 227 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. (Vermilion)3 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement 117 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. Doig River First Nation Doig River 159 km This proposed pipeline loop is in the TLU area. IR No. 2063 Duncan’s First Nation Duncan's IR 223 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. No. 151A3 TANGHE CREEK LATERAL LOOP No. 2 (CRANBERRY SECTION) Clear Hills County N/A This proposed pipeline loop is located in Clear Hills County. Town of Manning 76 km The largest community close to this proposed pipeline loop. Manning is located in the County of Northern Lights. County of Northern Lights N/A A portion of the Chinchaga Forestry Road, used to access the proposed pipeline loop, is located in the County of Northern Lights. Dene Tha' First Nation Bushe River 155 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. IR No. 2073 Beaver First Nation Boyer IR No. 184 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. 1643 Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 193 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. (Vermilion)3 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement 70 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. Doig River First Nation Doig River 118 km This proposed pipeline loop is in the TLU area. IR No. 2063 Duncan’s First Nation Duncan's IR 120 km This proposed pipeline loop is in TLU area. No. 151A3 Notes: 1 Distances are approximate. 2. The Northern Rockies Regional District and the town of Fort Nelson were amalgamated into the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality in 2009. 3. Closest community or populated reserve to the proposed pipeline loop.

5.12.2 Land Use Plans and Zoning This subsection provides the overall goals and objectives of the applicable municipal development plans, the land and resource management plans and land use bylaws as well as provides land use designations along the three proposed pipeline loops. The Project is located within the jurisdiction of four development and land use plans. There are no conflicts between the land use designations or zoning at the regional or local levels along or adjacent to the three proposed pipeline loops.

Page 5-66

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located on provincial Crown land in BC, which is under the jurisdiction of the BC MFLNRO. This proposed pipeline loop is not located within the NRRM's planning area or in an area that is zoned by the NRRM and, consequently, will not be subject to their building inspection.

This proposed pipeline loop is located within the planning area of the Fort Nelson LRMP and the proposed pipeline and associated facilities are located in the Enhanced Resource Development land use category. The Fort Nelson LRMP was approved by the government of BC in October 1997 (BC ILMB 1997). The management intent of the Enhanced Resource Development category is to provide for intensive development of resources such as timber, natural gas, and minerals. Resource development is a priority in this category. Within this category, the proposed pipeline loop is located in the Etsho RMZ. Within this RMZ, the land use strategy related to oil and gas development is to promote and encourage oil and gas exploration activities, and encourage investment in exploration, development, and transportation of energy resources.

There are no conflicts along this pipeline loop between the land use designations along and adjacent to the Footprint, or in the Socio-economic LSA or RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located on Alberta provincial Crown land, and lands under the jurisdiction of two MDPs. Approximately 41.4 km of this proposed pipeline loop is located in the boundaries of the Mackenzie County MDP. Within this MDP, this proposed pipeline loop is located on lands subject to the Crown Land Policy Area which is classified as the Green Area, in the designated Forestry District. The Crown Land Objectives include the encouragement of the appropriate use of Crown lands. MDP Crown Land Policies support the use of Crown lands for renewable and non-renewable resource development (ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. 2009). There are no conflicts along this proposed pipeline loop between the land use designations along and adjacent to the Footprint, or in the Socio-economic LSA or RSA of the Timberwolf Section. Permitting for new camps or buildings goes through the Municipality.

Approximately 8.4 km of this proposed pipeline loop is located on land in the County of Northern Lights MDP. This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Province's Green Area and has a land use designation of Crown Land District - CL in the MDP. Crown Land policies include the County's support of the use of Crown lands for renewable and non renewable resource development, limited grazing, conservation, and recreational use (ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. 2010). No permit is required under the County of Northern Lights Land Use Bylaw (Dechant pers. comm.).

There are no conflicts along this pipeline loop between the MDP and the land use bylaw designations along and adjacent to the Footprint, or in the Socio-economic LSA or RSA of the Timberwolf Section.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located on Alberta provincial Crown land and falls under the jurisdiction of the Clear Hills County Land Use Bylaw. It is located in the land use designation Crown Land Management - FD. The general purpose of the district is to regulate land use on Crown land. Within this land use designation, industrial camps and oil and gas servicing are discretionary uses (Mackenzie Municipal Services Agency 2008). There are no permits required for this pipeline loop or for temporary construction camps in place for less than six months.

There are no conflicts along the pipeline loop with current land use designations along and adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop.

5.12.3 Natural Resource Use Lands within the Socio-economic RSA for each of the proposed loops are forested with minor inclusions (i.e., muskeg and wetlands). There are no agricultural lands within the Footprint or Socio-economic LSA or RSA of the three proposed pipeline loops.

Oil and gas activities are prevalent in each Socio-economic RSA. Exploration and development activities related to the oil and gas sector include seismic, pipelines, well sites, access road and associated

Page 5-67

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

facilities such as gas processing plants. A number of companies are active in the area, including ATCO Electric Ltd. Husky Oil Operations Limited, ConocoPhillips Canada Operations, BP Canada Energy Resources Company and Devon Canada Corporation (Alberta Energy 2010b). All disposition holders will be contacted and agreements and arrangements will be made, where required.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop crosses the Fort Nelson TSA within the Fort Nelson FD, which is regulated by BC MFLNRO (GeoBC 2010, BC MOFR 2010b). No forest tenures (e.g., forest licenses, Licenses to Cut) or land dispositions related to forestry are located along this proposed pipeline loop.

In 2006, the allowable annual cut (AAC) for the Fort Nelson TSA was increased, in part to allow for harvesting associated with increased oil and gas activity (BC MOFR 2006). The NRRM and Fort Nelson First Nation are in the early stages of the development of a Community Forest Agreement (CFA) through the Fort Nelson Forestry Roundtable (NRRM 2010b). The proposed community forest areas have not yet been established.

There are no operating or abandoned coal mines or dispositions, potash licenses or quarry leases in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop (GeoBC 2010, BC MEMPR 2009a,b).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Green Area within the Lower Peace Forest Management Unit (FMU). The Footprint and Socio-economic LSA for the Timberwolf Section are located in a Tolko Industries Ltd. Forestry Management Agreement (FMA) area. In addition, this proposed pipeline loop crosses a Consultative Notation (CNT) held by the Peace River Office, Land Use Area – Lands Division (Table 5.21) for a Timber Resource Management Area. The disposition holders will be contacted and agreements and arrangements will be made, where required.

This proposed pipeline loop does not traverse operating or abandoned coal mines, potash licenses, patent claims, quarry leases or withdrawals, or mining-restricted lands (Alberta Energy 2010a,c).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Green Area within the Upper Peace FMU and crosses a Coniferous Forest Timber Licence held by Manning Diversified Forests Products Ltd. and a Deciduous Forest Timber Licence held by Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. (Table 5.21). The disposition holders will be contacted and agreements and arrangements will be made, where required.

This proposed pipeline loop does not traverse operating or abandoned coal mines, potash licenses, patent claims, quarry leases or withdrawals, or mining-restricted lands (Alberta Energy 2010a,c). There is one application (KPC 17.1 to KPC 17.9) for surface material exploration made by Advantage North Services Ltd. along this proposed pipeline loop. In addition, Advantage North Services Ltd. holds two dispositions for sand and gravel removal, one at KPC 16.6 (Midwest 2011a,b,c) and one between KPC 17.1 to KPC 17.9 (Alberta Energy 2010a, Midwest 2011a,b,c). These dispositions are presented in Table 5.21.

TABLE 5.21

PROVINCIAL CROWN LANDS AND SELECTED DISPOSITIONS ALONG THE TIMBERWOLF AND CRANBERRY SECTIONS

Approximate Location (KP) Code Type Number Legal Location (W6M) Name/Agency Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) KPT 41.4 to CNT Consultative Notation 090032 Twp 104 Rge 12 Peace River Office - Land KPT 49.8 Use Area - Lands Division KPT 0 to KPT FMA Forest Management 0200040 Twps 105, 106, 107, 108 Tolko Industries Ltd. 41.4 Agreement and 109, Rge 12

Page 5-68

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.21 Cont'd

Approximate Location (KP) Code Type Number Legal Location (W6M) Name/Agency Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) KPC 0 to KPT CTL Coniferous Timber License 150002 Twp 96 Rges 5, 6 and 7 Manning Diversified Forests 32.4 Products Ltd KPC 0 to KPT DTL Deciduous Timber License 150001 Twp 96 Rges 5, 6 and 7 Daishowa-Marubeni 32.4 International Ltd. KPC 17.1 to SME Surface Material 100138 SE 17-96-6 Advantage North Services KPC 17.9 Exploration Ltd.(Application) KPC 17.1 to DRS Transportation (Sand and 880 SE 17-96-6 N/A KPC 17.9 gravel removal area) KPC 26.7 to CRP Conservation and 000045 NE 20-96-7 and Nelson Strom KPC 27.5 and Reclamation Plan NW 21-96-7 KPC 27.5 to KPC 28.5 KPC 20.4 to USP Unrefined Spill Release 960070 NE 13-96-7 Clear Hills County KPC 21.3 KPC 27.5 to DWD Drilling Waste Disposal 060111 20-96-7 Baytex Energy Ltd. KPC 29.2 (sump site) KPC 27.9 to DWD Drilling Waste Disposal 030185 10-20-96-7 Baytex Energy Ltd. KPC 28.5 (sump site) KPC 26.6 to SML Surface Material Lease 950032 NW 21-96-7 Battle River Oilfield KPC 27.5 (sand and gravel) Construction Ltd. KPC 29.6 to DWD Drilling Waste Disposal 060026 SE 30-96-7 Spartan Exploration Ltd. KPC 30.1 (sump site) KPC 29.6 to DWD Drilling Waste Disposal 060128 8-30-96-7 Spartan Exploration Ltd. KPC 30.1 (sump site) KPC 30.1 to DWD Drilling Waste Disposal 980034 9-30-96-7 Spartan Exploration Ltd. KPC 30.3 (sump site) KPC 30.1 to DWD Drilling Waste Disposal 980049 9-30-96-7 Spartan Exploration Ltd. KPC 30.3 (sump site) Source: Alberta Energy 2010b

5.12.3.1 Outfitting, Hunting and Fishing Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in MU 7-56 in the Peace Region (7B) (BC MOE 2010f). There are no guide/outfitters that currently hold permits in WMU 7-56 (GeoBC 2010).

The Socio-economic RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section is actively used by Aboriginal and resident hunters, mainly for moose. The hunting season for moose and black bear extends from mid-August to late October and mid-November, respectively. White-tailed deer are open for hunting from mid-September to the end of November. The hunting season for black bear and wolf extends from early April to mid-June. The season for wolverine is from mid-October to mid-January, while the season for lynx is from mid-November to mid-February. The coyote and cougar season extends from early and mid-September, respectively, to late March while the snowshoe hare season extends from early August to late April (BC MOE 2010f).

The game bird hunting season extends from early September to mid-November for spruce (Franklin) and ruffed grouse as well as sharp-tailed grouse. Coots, common snipe, ducks, Canada geese, white-fronted geese, and snow geese seasons are from early September through November. Ptarmigan season extends from mid-August to late February (BC MOE 2010f).

This proposed pipeline loop lies in the Peace Region (7B) Fish Management Zone. There are no general fishing closures or water-specific closures in MU 7-56 (BC MOE 2010g). The closest fishing lakes to this proposed pipeline loop are outside of the Socio-economic RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section (Kotcho Lake

Page 5-69

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 and Ekwan Lake located 40 km and 15.3 km from this proposed pipeline loop, respectively) (Forsberg pers. comm.). Aboriginal groups have identified that lakes and rivers in the entire Socio-economic RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section could be used for fishing (Calliou Group 2009).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Most of this proposed pipeline loop traverses the Rainbow Lake WMU 536 (ASRD 2010c). Lands along this pipeline loop in Twp 104 are in the Chinchaga River WMU 524 (ASRD 2010c). The area around this proposed pipeline loop, including the Socio-economic RSA for the Timberwolf Section, is actively used for hunting by Aboriginal and resident hunters (Gerwing pers. comm.). Three outfitters also operate in the vicinity of the Timberwolf Section. The main species hunted are moose and black bear (Gerwing pers. comm.).

In WMUs 536 and 524, the hunting seasons for white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose and black bear extend from September 1 to November 30 with a spring black bear season from April 17 to July 15 (ASRD 2010c). The hunting season for ruffed, spruce grouse and sharp-tailed grouse extends from September 1 to November 30. For ptarmigan and waterfowl, the hunting season extends from September 1 to December 15 and 16 (ptarmigan and waterfowl, respectively) (ASRD 2010c).

This proposed pipeline loop is located within the Northern Boreal Zone (Zone 3) Peace River Watershed Unit (NB3). Rivers and tributaries in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop are closed to fishing from November 1 to May 31, with the exception of Rainbow Lake, which is open year-round (ASRD 2009e). This proposed loop does not cross any sport or commercial fishing areas. Rainbow Lake, located outside the Socio-economic RSA for the Timberwolf Section, is a popular fishing area in the vicinity of the Project (Gerwing, Offrey pers. comm.). The Hay River has been identified as an important river for Aboriginal communities.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) This proposed pipeline loop traverses the Chinchaga River WMU 524 (ASRD 2010c). The area around this proposed pipeline loop is actively used for hunting and it can be expected to occur anywhere within the Socio-economic RSA of this pipeline loop. The main species hunted is moose, but deer is also hunted. Three outfitters operate in the vicinity of the Cranberry Section.

The hunting season for WMU 524 is described under the Timberwolf Section above.

Similar to the Timberwolf Section, the Cranberry Section is located in the Northern Boreal Zone (Zone 3) Peace River Watershed Unit (NB3). Rivers and tributaries in the vicinity of this proposed loop are closed to fishing from November 1 to May 31, with the exception of Rainbow Lake, which is open year-round (ASRD 2009e). This proposed pipeline loop does not cross any sport or commercial fishing areas. Based on discussions with ASRD (Schram pers. comm.) there is limited fishing that occurs in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop. Fishing does occur from the Chinchaga Forestry Road bridge; however, this location is not intensively used. Aboriginal communities have identified the Chinchaga River as an important river.

5.12.3.2 Trapping Consultation with trappers is ongoing. Trappers whose trap lines are crossed by the proposed pipeline loops were contacted early in the planning process to discuss the routes for the proposed loops, the timing of construction and to identify any issues, concerns and interests they may have. During the consultation, no trapper cabins were identified on the Footprint or in the Socio-economic LSA or RSA of the three proposed pipeline loops. Trappers will be contacted prior to construction to confirm the construction dates in their trapping area. Should construction affect the trapper, they will be compensated for any associated losses related to their trapping activities in accordance with the NGTL Trapper Compensation and Engagement Program.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop crosses two registered trapping areas (TR0756T003 and TR0756T009) (GeoBC 2010). Furbearing species of interest in the Project area include beaver, black bear, coyote, fox,

Page 5-70

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 lynx, marten, mink, muskrat, raccoon, river otter, skunk, squirrel, weasel, wolf, and wolverine (BC MOE 2010f).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in Fur Management Zone 2 (ASRD 2010d). Furbearing species trapped in Fur Management Zone 2 include beaver, coyote, red/arctic fox, marten, mink, muskrat, red squirrel, weasel, wolf, fisher, lynx, otter and wolverine (ASRD 2010d). There are three registered trapping areas (TPA 1613, TPA 1246 and TPA 88) traversed by this proposed pipeline loop.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in Fur Management Zone 2 (ASRD 2010d). Furbearing species trapped in Fur Management Zone 2 are discussed above under the Timberwolf Section. There are two registered trapping areas (TPA 2357 and TPA 2269) traversed by this proposed pipeline loop.

5.12.3.3 Navigable Waters See the Infrastructure and Services Element (Section 5.18) for a discussion of Navigable Waters.

5.12.4 Parks, Protected Areas and Outdoor Recreational Use Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop does not encounter or encroach upon any lands under Parks Canada jurisdiction, or regional or provincial parks (Parks Canada 2010, BC MOE 2011d).

There are no parks or protected areas traversed by this proposed pipeline loop (GeoBC 2010, BC MOE 2011d). The nearest protected areas to this proposed pipeline loop are Ekwan Lake Protected Area, located approximately 15.3 km southeast of KPK 29.1 and Hay River Protected Area, located approximately 24 km east of KPK 29.1. This proposed pipeline loop is on lands designated as BC Provincial Forest. The Provincial Forest Use Regulations specifies that non-forest uses including commercial and industrial uses are compatible with general forestry purposes and are permitted to occur on Crown land (BC MOE 2010a). This proposed pipeline loop is also located within a Wood Bison Management Zone in northeast BC (Harper et al. 2000) but does not encounter any bison range. No issues related to management have been raised.

Tourism and recreational use in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop is generally concentrated west of Fort Nelson along the Alaska Highway Corridor and in the Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park, and north of Fort Nelson, along the Liard Highway. These highway corridors are used to access the back country in this region. There are no formal recreational uses or recreational camping sites in the Socio-economic RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section. The Fort Nelson Snowmobile Club (BC Snowmobile Federation 2011) operates in the vicinity of Fort Nelson. A range of recreational services are found in Fort Nelson, including an aquatics centre (swimming pool, whirl pool and sauna) recreation centre (hockey, skating, rollerblading, curling and lounge), outdoor facilities (ball diamonds, shooting range and rodeo grounds) golf and walking, hiking, and biking trails (NRRM 2011).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) This proposed pipeline loop does not encounter or encroach upon any lands under Parks Canada jurisdiction, or regional or provincial parks (Parks Canada 2010, ATPR 2010). The nearest parks and protected areas include Hay-Zama Lakes Wildland Provincial Park, located approximately 45 km northeast of KPT 0.0 and Rainbow Lake Provincial Recreational Area, located approximately 36 km east of KPT 15.0.

A number of provincially designated wildlife areas are located in the Socio-economic RSA for the Timberwolf Section. These include the Chinchaga Diversity Area Section 548, the Chinchaga caribou range, a Grizzly Bear Secondary Zone, a Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone associated with the Hay River and a Bison Management Zone. Issues associated with wildlife and wildlife habitat are addressed in Section 5.10 of this ESA.

Page 5-71

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Recreational facilities in the Town of Rainbow Lake include a Health and Fitness Club, curling lounge, library, golf course, arena, parks and outdoor courts (Town of Rainbow Lake 2009). Recreational facilities in the Town of High Level include a golf course, pool, curling rink, ice rinks, tennis courts, ball diamonds, and day-use areas (AlbertaFirst.com 2010b). The Alberta Snowmobile Association operates a snowmobile club out of High level (Alberta Snowmobile Association 2011).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) This proposed pipeline loop does not encounter or encroach upon any lands under Parks Canada jurisdiction, regional or provincial parks (Parks Canada 2010, ATPR 2010). The nearest parks and protected areas are Chinchaga Wildland Provincial Park, located approximately 17 km west of KPC 29.0, Notikewin Provincial Park, located approximately 88 km east of KPT 0.0, Twin Lakes Provincial Recreational Area, located approximately 68.8 km east of KPC 0.0, Sulphur Lake Provincial Recreational Area, located approximately 72 km south of KPC 0.0, Running Lake Provincial Recreational Area, located approximately 72.7 km south of KPC 18.0 and Stoney Lake Provincial Recreational Area, located approximately 92.5 km south of KPC 0.0.

A number of provincially designated wildlife areas are located in the Socio-economic RSA of the Cranberry Section. These include the Chinchaga Diversity Area 646 and Chinchaga Diversity Area 739b, Chinchaga caribou range, a Grizzly Bear Secondary Zone and a Bison Management Zone. Issues associated with wildlife and wildlife habitat are addressed in Section 5.10 of this ESA.

Recreational facilities in the Town of Manning include outdoor rinks, a gym, tennis courts, ball diamonds, a ski hill, and a golf course (Town of Manning 2010).

5.12.5 Water Use Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Kotcho Lake Watershed group in northeast BC (BC MOE 2010a). Further information on surface water quantity is provided found in Section 5.3 of this ESA.

Well uses in the Fort Nelson area include domestic, commercial, and industrial use, as well as several wells with unknown uses (BC MOE 2010b). There are no registered groundwater wells located in the Socio-economic LSA of this pipeline loop. The registration of groundwater wells is not mandatory in BC, therefore, unregistered wells may be present. However, given the remote location of this pipeline loop, this is unlikely. In addition, there are no published records of springs located within 2 km of this proposed pipeline loop (BC MOE 2010b, GeoBC 2010).

The Town of Fort Nelson draws its domestic water supply directly from the Muskwa River, which is outside the Socio-economic RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section. The number of water licenses in the Fort Nelson area is low and reflects the small population and level of development in the area. There are no surface water licences located on the watercourses crossed by this proposed pipeline loop within 2 km of the proposed water crossings (BC MOE 2010b).

Water withdrawal in the Socio-economic RSA of this pipeline loop will not be required for the temporary construction camp that will be used by this pipeline loop. It is expected that all temporary construction camp water requirements will be trucked to the temporary construction camp. Options for water withdrawal for the purposes of hydrostatic testing are currently under consideration. Current consideration for water sources is being given to using a borrow pit or Kotcho Lake.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Hay River Basin and Fontas River sub-basin in northwest Alberta (AENV 2011c). Further information on surface water quantity is provided in Section 5.3 of this ESA.

Page 5-72

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

There are no groundwater wells located within a 2 km radius of this proposed pipeline loop (AENV 2011b). There are no published records of springs located within 2 km of this proposed pipeline loop (AENV 1991, Borneuf 1983).

The Town of High Level obtains its water from Footner Lake where it is treated by a new water treatment plant (AlbertaFirst.com 2010b). The Town of Rainbow Lake collects surface water in a reservoir which is equipped with aeration and is treated (AlbertaFirst.com 2010a).

Water withdrawal in the Socio-economic RSA of this pipeline loop will not be required for the temporary construction camp. It is expected that all water requirements will be trucked to the temporary construction camp. Options for water withdrawal for the purposes of hydrostatic testing are currently under consideration. Current consideration for water sources is being given to the Hay River or waterbodies located at KPT 19, KPT 32 and KPT 49.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section)

This proposed pipeline loop is located in the Chinchaga River and Notikewin River sub-basins in northwest Alberta (AENV 2011c). Further information on surface water quantity is provided in Section 5.3 of this ESA.

There are four groundwater wells within a 2 km radius of this proposed loop. The groundwater well uses are all industrial (AENV 2011c). There are no published records of springs located within 2 km of this proposed pipeline loop (AENV 1991, Borneuf 1983).

The Town of Manning obtains its drinking water from a raw water supply from the Notikewin River where it is treated at the Town of Manning Water Treatment Plant (Town of Manning 2010).

Water withdrawal within the Socio-economic RSA of this pipeline loop will not be required for the temporary construction camp that will be used by this pipeline loop. It is expected that all water requirements will be trucked to the temporary construction camp. Options for water withdrawal for the purposes of hydrostatic testing are currently under consideration. Current consideration for water sources is being given to the Chinchaga River or the waterbody located at KPC 9.

5.12.6 Visual Attributes Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in an area that is not readily accessible to communities or to the public. This proposed pipeline loop is not located near the Alaska Highway tourism corridor, and is located approximately 15 km and 24 km from Ekwan Lake and Hay River Protected Areas, respectively. The proposed pipeline loop is located in a management zone (Etsho RMZ) under the Fort Nelson LRMP identified as a priority for resource development (BC ILMB 1997).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in an area that is not readily accessible to communities or to the public. Rainbow Lake and Rainbow Lake Provincial Recreational Area are located approximately 30 km and 37 km east from the proposed pipeline loop respectively. This proposed pipeline loop is located on lands under two MDPs that allow for the development of non-renewable resources (County of Northern Lights 2010, Mackenzie County 2009).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) This proposed pipeline loop is located in an area that is not readily accessible to the public (access is via industrial gravel roads). The closest highway (Highway 35) is located over 60 km from this proposed pipeline loop and Chinchaga Wildland Provincial Park is located approximately 17 km west of this proposed pipeline loop. This proposed pipeline loop is located on land that allows for non-renewable resource development (Mackenzie Municipal Services Agency 2008).

Page 5-73

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.13 Heritage Resources This subsection describes the known heritage resources (e.g., archaeological sites, palaeontological potential areas) along the three proposed pipeline loops. Locations of known archaeological sites within the Footprint of each pipeline loop are identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 9 of this ESA). Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to heritage resources are discussed in Sections 6.2.13 of this ESA.

5.13.1 Potential Archaeological Areas Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Heritage Inspection Permit 2009-173 was obtained in order to conduct an AIA along the Kyklo Creek Section. Field work for the AIA was conducted in the fall of 2009 and under the Heritage Conservation Act; on June 9, 2010, BC MFLNRO concurred and accepted the results of TERA's AIA for Heritage Inspection Permit 2009-173 that archaeological resources will not be affected by this proposed pipeline loop.

An additional AIA will be conducted during the spring of 2011 under a new Heritage Inspection Permit to assess additional temporary workspace and loop realignments that encounter areas of moderate to high archaeological potential.

A site file search of BC's Remote Access to Archaeological Data found one site (IeRf 2) located approximately 40 m north of KPK 21.0. This information, along with the results of previous overviews and assessments, existing site information, topographic maps, aerial photographs, and visual assessments made during helicopter overflights and reconnaissance by Argos, was used to define areas of low, moderate, and high archaeological potential within the Footprint. Areas of moderate and high archaeological potential, including portions of this proposed pipeline loop within 100 m of a previously identified site, were targeted for pedestrian assessment involving visual inspection and subsurface testing. A total of 30 shovel tests were excavated across the Footprint of this proposed pipeline loop, none of which were positive for cultural material.

Areas within the Footprint of this proposed pipeline loop considered to have low archaeological potential were characterized by flat, featureless terrain, water saturated environments such as bogs and muskeg, moderately to steeply sloping terrain and previously disturbed lands (e.g., roadways and industrial developments). These areas were not targeted for pedestrian assessment but were assessed using Argos and helicopter overflights.

Areas within the Footprint of this proposed pipeline loop considered to have moderate to high archaeological potential were characterized by at least one of the following landscape features:

• areas of level, well-drained terrain adjacent to defined water sources (e.g., streams and lakes); • micro-topographic relief, providing well-drained landforms adjacent to or within low-lying areas of muskeg; • the level tops and benches of well defined, elevated landforms, such as knolls and eskers, in areas of otherwise level terrain; • level terrain adjacent to distinct breaks-in-slope. These areas, along with the one previously-identified site (IeRf 2), were targeted for pedestrian assessment involving visual inspection and, where warranted, subsurface testing. Members of Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation and Dene Tha' First Nation participated in the pedestrian assessment.

Most of this proposed pipeline loop crosses extensive tracts of muskeg lacking any features of elevated, better-drained terrain. A total of 30 shovel tests were excavated within two target areas of identified moderate to high potential for archaeological resources along this proposed pipeline loop. No archaeological sites were found in conflict with the Kyklo Creek Section. One traditional use trail (IeRf 2) lies in close proximity to the Footprint of this proposed loop, but no intact portions of this trail are intercepted by this proposed pipeline loop.

Page 5-74

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

The proposed crossing of Kyklo Creek (KPK 20.9) was targeted for pedestrian survey and shovel testing, on account of the moderately drained banks surrounding this strongly meandering creek, which is otherwise surrounded by saturated muskeg. A total of eight shovel tests were excavated atop the west bank of the Kyklo Creek. All eight shovel tests tested negative for cultural material. The bank was populated by mature dogwood. Soil profiles consisted of a duff layer (0-10 cm below surface [cmbs]) overlying an organic, black silty clay (10-40+ cmbs). A total of 22 shovel tests were excavated atop the east bank of the Kyklo Creek at KPK 21.5, adjacent to previously recorded site IeRf 2. All 22 shovel tests tested negative for cultural material. The bank was populated by a forest containing young aspen, birch and poplar trees and mature willow and alder bushes. Soil profiles consisted of duff (0-10 cmbs) overlying medium brown clay containing a few pebbles (10-30+ cmbs).

Site IeRf 2, a Traditional Land Use and Post-contact trail, was previously recorded approximately 40 m north of KPK 21.0. The trail runs northwest to southeast and was observed as a narrow corridor of cleared trees north of the existing Encana Ekwan Pipeline right-of-way. Disturbance caused by that pipeline and overgrowth of the forest on the south side of the existing pipeline right-of-way has made the trail impossible to follow. A thorough visual inspection of the Footprint on the south side of Kyklo Creek found no evidence of the trail within or immediately adjacent to this proposed pipeline loop. None of the 22 shovel tests excavated at this location were positive for cultural resources. No intact portions of the trail will be impacted by this proposed pipeline loop.

Based on the results of TERA's AIA, archaeological resources will not be affected by this proposed pipeline loop as assessed under Heritage Inspection Permit 2009-173.

Final Heritage Conservation Act clearance recommendations pertaining to the 2011 Heritage Inspection Permit will be submitted to BC MFLNRO upon the completion of the AIA, scheduled for the summer 2011.

Aboriginal groups who are potentially affected by this proposed pipeline loop will be invited to participate in the 2011 supplemental field surveys. Detailed results of the AIA will be presented in a supplemental filing to the NEB upon completion of field work for this proposed pipeline loop.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) A Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) was conducted for this proposed pipeline loop under Archaeological Research Permit 10-247. Field work for the HRIA was initiated in the fall of 2010; however, due to inclement weather, poor ground conditions and snow cover, the ground reconnaissance was deferred until summer 2011 and will be conducted under a new Archaeological Research Permit.

A site file search of the Archaeological Survey and of the Historic Places Stewardship Section of the Historic Resources Management Branch of ACCS was conducted. This proposed pipeline loop is located on lands listed as having no Historical Resources Value (HRV) for heritage resources in the current "Listing of Historic Resources" (ACCS 2010). However, this proposed pipeline loop crosses several drainages and lands supporting native vegetation, thereby necessitating further archaeological assessment. Results from the site file search indicate there are no previously-identified historic resources within 1 km of this proposed pipeline loop. Ground reconnaissance will include an intensive visual inspection and subsurface testing within the Footprint of this proposed pipeline loop.

To date, the HRIA for this proposed pipeline loop included a helicopter overflight that focused on the visual assessment and refinement of six broad pre-field target areas. The overflight resulted in the identification of nine sub-target areas within the six target areas. Sub-target areas included named and unnamed watercourse and drainage crossings, areas in proximity to waterbodies and general high points. During the helicopter overflight, each of these nine sub-target areas was visually assessed for their archaeological potential and merit for ground reconnaissance. Of these nine sub-target areas, nine warranted ground reconnaissance; one was examined in fall 2010, and eight remain for the spring 2011 field season. Members of Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan's First Nation participated in the ground reconnaissance.

Final Historical Resources Act clearance recommendations pertaining to Archaeological Research Permit 10-247 and to the 2011 Archaeological Research Permit will be submitted to ACCS upon the completion ground reconnaissance portion of the HRIA; scheduled for the summer 2011.

Page 5-75

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Aboriginal groups who are potentially affected by this proposed pipeline loop will be invited to participate in the 2011 supplemental field surveys. Detailed results of the HRIA will be presented in a supplemental filing to the NEB upon completion of field work for this proposed pipeline loop.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) An HRIA was conducted for this proposed pipeline loop under Archaeological Research Permit 10-247. Field work for the HRIA was conducted in the fall of 2010.

A site file search of the Archaeological Survey and of the Historic Places Stewardship Section of the Historic Resources Management Branch of ACCS was conducted. This proposed pipeline loop is located on lands listed as having no HRV for heritage resources in the current "Listing of Historic Resources" (ACCS 2010). However, this proposed pipeline loop crosses several drainages and lands supporting native vegetation, thereby necessitating further archaeological assessment. Results from a site file search indicate there are no previously-identified historic resources within 1 km of this proposed pipeline loop.

The HRIA for this proposed pipeline loop included a helicopter overflight that focused on the visual assessment and refinement of two broad pre-field target areas. The overflight resulted in the identification of nine sub-target areas within the two target areas. Sub-target areas included named and unnamed watercourse and drainage crossings, areas in proximity to waterbodies and general high points. During the helicopter overflight, each of these nine sub-target areas was visually assessed for their archaeological potential and merit for ground reconnaissance. Of these nine sub-target areas, five warranted ground reconnaissance. Members of Dene Tha' First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan's First Nation participated in the ground reconnaissance.

Ground reconnaissance at the five sub-target areas included an intensive visual inspection of the ground surface and a shovel testing program undertaken at locations of moderate to high archaeological potential within the Footprint of this proposed pipeline loop. Visual inspection found no surface features within the Footprint at any of the five locations. The shovel testing program included 199 shovel tests excavated across these five locations, none of which tested positive for cultural material.

Final Historical Resources Act clearance recommendations pertaining to Archaeological Research Permit 10-247 will be submitted upon completion of field work for the Timberwolf Section. Detailed results of the HRIA will be presented in a supplemental filing to the NEB upon completion of field work for the Timberwolf Section.

5.13.2 Potential Palaeontological Areas The Kyklo Creek Section does not traverse any previously designated palaeontological sites and is located in an area of low palaeontological potential with no visible bedrock outcroppings (Hills 2009).

The Timberwolf and Cranberry sections are located on lands listed as having no HRV for palaeontological resources in the current "Listing of Historic Resources" (ACCS 2010) and are located in an area of low palaeontological potential with no visible bedrock outcroppings.

5.14 Traditional Land and Resource Use In planning development projects, NGTL engages with Aboriginal communities that may be affected by a proposed development or that may have an interest in the development based on the proximity of their community and their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land.

The TLU studies for the Project focus on Aboriginal communities' current use of land for traditional activities. Field reconnaissance focused on the Crown land area of each community's asserted traditional territories potentially disturbed by Project construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (e.g., pipeline right-of-way, temporary construction workspace and access). The TLU studies for the Project are community-led and/or community-directed (i.e., third party) and, therefore, locations outside the Footprint along a proposed pipeline loop identified by a given community may also be investigated.

Page 5-76

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TERA collected information regarding the current use of the land from Aboriginal communities who elected to participate in the TLU studies. The Project is located within the boundaries of Treaty 8 and the following Treaty 8 signatories are participating in Project-related TLU studies:

• Fort Nelson First Nation;

• Prophet River First Nation;

• Doig River First Nation;

• Dene Tha' First Nation;

• Beaver First Nation; and

• Duncan's First Nation.

In addition, the following Métis Settlement and Local of Métis Nation of Alberta Region 6 are participating in Project-related TLU studies.

• Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74; and

• Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement.

The aim of the TLU studies is to assess and mitigate effects of the Project on current use of Crown land for traditional activities and on identified TLU sites by:

• identifying how lands in the study are currently used by Aboriginal people for traditional purposes;

• outlining the spatial and temporal extent of TLU;

• determining potential impacts the Project may have on the identified use of the land for traditional purposes and the ability of the users to maintain their current use for traditional purposes within the Footprint of the proposed pipeline loops; and

• identifying strategies to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential Project effects on TLU.

5.14.1 TLU Site Types As part of the TLU studies for the Project, each Aboriginal community will be asked to identify potential TLU sites, including trails, culturally modified trees (CMTs), habitation sites, plant harvesting locations, hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering places, and sacred areas. Mitigation strategies are discussed at the TLU site location.

5.14.1.1 Trails and Travelways Trails may include well-defined all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and snowmobile corridors, river portages, navigable waters and historic foot, dogsled, wagon, and pack horse pathways.

5.14.1.2 Culturally Modified Trees CMTs are trees showing evidence of intentional modification by Aboriginal people in their utilization of the forest. CMTs include such features as trees from which the bark and/or cambium has been stripped for use as a raw material or for food, trees logged for Aboriginal purposes, trees blazed to mark trails, or trees carved for spiritual practices. CMTs provide physical evidence of Aboriginal resource historical or current utilization in an area and, as such, are often valued by community members of Aboriginal communities.

5.14.1.3 Habitation Sites Habitation sites are typically set in prime, resource-rich areas and include traditional campsites, cabins and settlements. Campsites typically have defined hearths/fire rings, de-limbed trees, tent frames and/or

Page 5-77

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 miscellaneous cached or discarded camping supplies and equipment. Cabin structures represent a more permanent occupation of the land and may include a central log or timber-framed structure, traditional activity areas, such as drying racks and smoking tents, and ancillary equipment storage areas. A group of cabins or campsites may signify a long-term or intermittent occupation. Habitation sites may be used seasonally or throughout the year, depending on location or necessity. The relative size and nature of habitation sites continuously evolve based on how families and communities grow, and often expand from campsites to cabins and possibly to settlements.

5.14.1.4 Plant Harvesting Many Aboriginal individuals harvest medicinal, ceremonial and food source plants in a variety of environments, including along watercourses, old growth forests, and in rugged or mountainous areas. Detailed information regarding medicinal plants and their uses is proprietary to the communities and handed down from the Elders.

5.14.1.5 Hunting Hunting sites are areas where large fauna such as elk, moose, deer, caribou, and/or bear are commonly harvested. They are identified both in community discussion and by observed game ambushes, blinds and hunting stands, dry meat racks, and/or butchered animal remains. Furthermore, locales where game can be expected, such as mineral licks, calving areas, and well-used game trails are typically prized hunting spots.

5.14.1.6 Fishing Fishing sites relate to the use of specific reaches of lakes and streams, although changes to local fishing spots and the broader water system can impact Aboriginal harvesting. Generally, information on traditional fishing areas is gathered by having community representatives identify fishing locales and specify the nature of their use and success.

5.14.1.7 Trappers Trapping and snaring of animals for food and pelts are activities that continue to be engaged in by Aboriginal individuals. These traps and snares may or may not be located within registered trap lines.

5.14.1.8 Gathering Places Bands of people often met in gathering places to share in ceremonial activities, exchange Aboriginal items of trade, arrange and celebrate marriages, or conduct other group activities. Such gathering places have historical, ceremonial and cultural significance to Aboriginal communities. Additionally, indigenous grave sites are sometimes recorded in the general area of important gathering places.

5.14.1.9 Sacred Sites One of the primary concerns of Aboriginal communities with regard to any development project is to ensure that sites sacred to the local communities are protected from adverse industrial effects. These areas may include burials, vision quest locations, rock art panels, birth locations, and ceremonial places among others. A particular site is often only a small component of a larger spiritual complex which can encompass topographic features and may, by its very nature in the context of Aboriginal spirituality, be inestimable and irreplaceable.

The following subsection describes TLU activities conducted with Aboriginal communities that have identified traditional territory along the proposed pipeline loops to date. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to traditional land and resource use are discussed in Sections 6.2.14 of this ESA.

5.14.2 TLU Study Methods TERA-assisted TLU studies were conducted in a phased approach consisting of map reviews, community interviews, field reconnaissance and follow-up reporting (Table 5.22 of this ESA). The studies are initiated by TERA with each interested community, during which time the Project scope, timetable, and location of

Page 5-78

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 the development were discussed. Maps were provided to orient community representatives to the location of the development. At the discretion of the individual communities, an evaluation of the Project was conducted by helicopter overflights and/or ground reconnaissance. During the field reconnaissance, open dialogue was conducted with community members and TERA TLU community liaisons.

Identification of TLU sites and discussions of potential mitigative actions were undertaken directly with the participating community representatives during the field reconnaissance. This information was used to create two reports, a detailed community-specific report, and a public summary report to be filed with regulators. The detailed community report documents each community's TLU involvement and the results of the field reconnaissance, including the confidential and proprietary information provided by the TLU Study participants. When the community report was prepared by TERA, a review by the community was conducted to allow confirmation of the accuracy of the information incorporated and approval of the inclusion of the confidential and proprietary information.

TABLE 5.22

TIMETABLE OF TRADITIONAL LAND USE STUDIES FOR EACH PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY

Community Map Review Interviews Overflight(s) Site Visits Results Review Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Fort Nelson Conducting third-party TLU study. Summer 2011 To be determined First Nation Prophet River March 3, 2010 -- September 24 May 10 to 17, 2010 June 28, 2010 First Nation to 27, 2009 Summer 2011 To be determined Dene Tha' Conducted third-party TLU study. -- N/A First Nation Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Doig River First Conducting third-party TLU study. Summer 2011 To be determined Nation Dene Tha' Conducting third-party TLU study with TERA. Summer 2011 To be determined First Nation Beaver November 18 January 26 November 17, Summer 2011 To be determined First Nation to 19, 2010 to 27, 2011 2010 Fort Vermilion February 10, To be February 9, 2011 Summer 2011 To be determined Métis Local 74 2011 determined Paddle Prairie March 24, 2011 To be Summer 2011 Summer 2011 To be determined Métis Settlement determined Duncan's Conducting third-party TLU study. Summer 2011 To be determined First Nation Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Doig River First Conducting third-party TLU study. Summer 2011 To be determined Nation Dene Tha' Conducting third-party TLU study with TERA. Summer 2011 To be determined First Nation Beaver November 18 January 26 November 17, Summer 2011 To be determined First Nation to 19, 2010 to 27, 2011 2010 Fort Vermilion February 10, To be February 9, 2011 Summer 2011 To be determined Métis Local 74 2011 determined Paddle Prairie March 24, 2011 To be Summer 2011 Summer 2011 To be determined Métis Settlement determined Duncan's Conducting third-party TLU study. Summer 2011 To be determined First Nation

Each of these phases of the TLU studies is described in greater detail in Section 3.3 and Appendix 6 of this ESA. A public summary, excluding the confidential information of the results of the TLU studies, is included in Appendix 6 of this ESA.

The review of community reports will be scheduled following the conclusion of the field reconnaissance.

Page 5-79

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.14.3 TLU Sites along Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Engagement with Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation and Dene Tha' First Nation is on- going and field reconnaissance will occur with Fort Nelson First Nation and Prophet River First Nation during the summer of 2011, if warranted (Section 9.7 of this ESA). Further details regarding the TLU studies can be found in Section 3.3 and Appendix 6 of this ESA.

5.14.3.1 Fort Nelson First Nation Fort Nelson First Nation will be collaborating with a third-party consultant to conduct their community- directed TLU study of the Kyklo Creek Section. TERA will accompany community members during the ground reconnaissance in summer 2011.

The results of the ground reconnaissance and mitigation meetings will be provided to the NEB as a supplemental TLU Study Report.

5.14.3.2 Prophet River First Nation A TERA-assisted TLU study, including a community map review, an overflight and ground reconnaissance, was conducted with Prophet River First Nation, focusing on that portion of the asserted traditional territory of Prophet River First Nation traversed by this proposed pipeline loop. The final review of the community report will be scheduled upon completion of the ground reconnaissance which is scheduled to occur during the summer of 2011.

The community map reviews, helicopter overflights and ground reconnaissance did not reveal any TLU sites requiring mitigation within the Footprint of this proposed pipeline loop (TERA 2010b).

5.14.3.3 Dene Tha' First Nation A third-party TLU study was conducted with Dene Tha' First Nation, focusing on that portion of the asserted traditional territory of Dene Tha' First Nation traversed by the Kyklo Creek Section.

TERA accompanied Dene Tha' First Nation during ground reconnaissance for their third-party TLU Study from August 27 to September 18, 2009 and from October 7 to 11, 2009. Target areas for ground reconnaissance were identified during community interviews. Detailed methodology can be found in "Final Report Dene Tha’ First Nation Aboriginal Knowledge and Land Use Study" (Calliou Group 2009).

At the time of filing of the Consolidated and Update Reports NGTL Horn River Mainline Project (TERA 2010b,c), Dene Tha' First Nation had completed its TLU study. No changes to the mitigation as listed in either the Consolidated or Update Reports have occurred (TERA 2010c,d). No mitigation for TLU sites along the Kyklo Creek Section was requested by Dene Tha' First Nation community members.

5.14.4 TLU Sites along Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Engagement with Doig River First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Beaver First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement and Duncan's First Nation is on-going and TLU studies will continue into 2011 (Section 9.7 of this ESA). Further details regarding the TLU studies can be found in Section 3.3 and Appendix 6 of this ESA.

5.14.4.1 Doig River First Nation Doig River First Nation will be collaborating with a third party consultant to conduct their community- directed TLU study of the Timberwolf Section. TERA will accompany community members during the ground reconnaissance in summer 2011.

The results of the ground reconnaissance and mitigation meetings will be provided to the NEB as a supplemental TLU Study Report.

Page 5-80

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.14.4.2 Dene Tha' First Nation Dene Tha' First Nation will be collaborating with TERA to conduct their community-directed TLU study of the Timberwolf Section. TERA will also accompany community members during the ground reconnaissance in summer 2011.

The results of the ground reconnaissance and mitigation meetings will be provided to the NEB as a supplemental TLU Study Report.

5.14.4.3 Beaver First Nation A TERA-assisted TLU study, including a map review, community and Elder interviews and an overflight, was conducted with Beaver First Nation, focusing on that portion of the asserted traditional territory of Beaver First Nation traversed by this proposed pipeline loop. The final review of the community report will be scheduled upon completion of the ground reconnaissance which is scheduled to occur during the summer of 2011.

Beaver First Nation community members did not identify any TLU sites requiring mitigation within the Footprint as a result of the map review, interviews and helicopter overflights.

5.14.4.4 Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 A TERA-assisted TLU study, including a map review and an overflight, was conducted with Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, focusing on that portion of the asserted traditional territory of Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 traversed by this proposed pipeline loop. The final review of the community report will be scheduled upon completion of the ground reconnaissance which is scheduled to occur during the summer of 2011.

Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 community members did not identify any TLU sites requiring mitigation within the Footprint of this proposed pipeline loop as a result of the map review and helicopter overflight.

5.14.4.5 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement A TERA-assisted TLU study, including a map review, was conducted with Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, focusing on that portion of the asserted traditional territories of Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement traversed by this proposed pipeline loop. Additionally, a helicopter overflight is tentatively scheduled to occur during the spring of 2011. The final review of the community report will be scheduled upon completion of the ground reconnaissance which is scheduled to occur during the summer of 2011.

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement community members did not identify any TLU sites requiring mitigation within the Footprint as a result of the map review.

5.14.4.6 Duncan's First Nation Duncan's First Nation will be collaborating with a third party consultant to conduct their community- directed TLU study of the Timberwolf Section. TERA will accompany community members during the ground reconnaissance in summer 2011.

The results of the ground reconnaissance and mitigation meetings will be provided to the NEB as a supplemental TLU Study Report.

5.14.5 TLU Sites along Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Engagement with Doig River First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation, Beaver First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement and Duncan's First Nation is on-going and TLU studies will continue into 2011 (Section 9.7 of this ESA). Further details regarding the TLU studies can be found in Section 3.3 and Appendix 6 of this ESA.

Page 5-81

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.14.5.1 Doig River First Nation Doig River First Nation will be collaborating with a third party consultant to conduct their community- directed TLU study of the Cranberry Section. TERA will accompany community members during the ground reconnaissance in summer 2011.

The results of the ground reconnaissance and mitigation meetings will be provided to the NEB as a supplemental TLU Study Report.

5.14.5.2 Dene Tha' First Nation Dene Tha' First Nation will be collaborating with TERA to conduct their community-directed TLU study of the Cranberry Section. TERA will also accompany community members during the ground reconnaissance in summer 2011.

The results of the ground reconnaissance and mitigation meetings will be provided to the NEB as a supplemental TLU Study Report.

5.14.5.3 Beaver First Nation A TERA-assisted TLU study, including a map review, community and Elder interviews and an overflight, was conducted with Beaver First Nation, focusing on that portion of the asserted traditional territory of Beaver First Nation traversed by this proposed pipeline loop. The final review of the community report will be scheduled upon completion of the ground reconnaissance which is scheduled to occur during the summer of 2011.

Beaver First Nation community members did not identify any TLU sites requiring mitigation within the Footprint as a result of the map review, interviews and helicopter overflights.

5.14.5.4 Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 A TERA-assisted TLU study, including a map review and an overflight, was conducted with Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74, focusing on that portion of the asserted traditional territory of Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 traversed by this proposed pipeline loop. The final review of the community report will be scheduled upon completion of the ground reconnaissance which is scheduled to occur during the summer of 2011.

Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 community members did not identify any TLU sites requiring mitigation within the Footprint of this proposed pipeline loop as a result of the map review and helicopter overflight.

5.14.5.5 Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement A TERA-assisted TLU study, including a map review, was conducted with Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, focusing on that portion of the asserted traditional territories of Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement traversed by this proposed pipeline loop. Additionally, a helicopter overflight is tentatively scheduled to occur during the spring of 2011. The final review of the community report will be scheduled upon completion of the ground reconnaissance which is scheduled to occur during the summer of 2011.

Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement community members did not identify any TLU sites requiring mitigation within the Footprint as a result of the map review.

5.14.5.6 Duncan's First Nation Duncan's First Nation will be collaborating with a third party consultant to conduct their community- directed TLU study of the Cranberry Section. TERA will accompany community members during the ground reconnaissance in summer 2011.

The results of the ground reconnaissance and mitigation meetings will be provided to the NEB as a supplemental TLU Study Report.

Page 5-82

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.14.6 Traditional Ecological Knowledge The collection and assessment of biophysical and socio-economic data are typically designed to align with Western value systems. Since Aboriginal people have often maintained close ties to the land it is important to capture TEK that has been collected over generations and has been passed down from the Elders.

Primary objectives of TEK studies are to:

• document the TEK of Aboriginal communities, to provide input to the design and execution of biophysical and socio-economic discipline programs; and

• establish baseline conditions, determining and evaluating effects on TEK, identifying mitigation opportunities and contributing to final routing, siting and Project design.

During the TEK studies, traditional methods of resource procurement are discussed, as well as modern methods currently employed. Seasonality of resource harvesting is also important information shared by Aboriginal participants. Geographical locations are identified, as are areas that are not used and the reasons why. Potential mitigation measures to reduce any Project-related impacts on a resource may also be discussed during TEK studies.

This subsection describes TEK activities conducted with Aboriginal communities that have identified traditional territory along the proposed pipeline loops to date. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to TEK are discussed in terms of the applicable environmental and socio-economic element in Section 6.0 of this ESA.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) TEK studies were initiated with Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation and Dene Tha' First Nation for the NGTL Horn River Mainline Project in 2009. Aboriginal groups who are potentially affected by this proposed pipeline loop will be invited to participate in the 2011 supplemental field surveys (Section 9.0 of this ESA). Fort Nelson First Nation will collect community TEK for their own reporting and community monitors will accompany the environmental field study teams. Review of TEK information with each participating Aboriginal community is ongoing. Further details regarding the TEK studies can be found in Sections 3.2, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and Appendices 2 to 5 of this ESA.

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) TEK studies were initiated with Dene Tha' First Nation, Beaver First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan's First Nation in fall 2010. To date, Doig River First Nation and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement have not participated in any TEK studies for this proposed pipeline loop due to only recently agreed upon TEK collection protocols with NGTL and a lack of participant availability, respectively. Aboriginal groups who are potentially affected by this proposed pipeline loop will be invited to participate in the 2011 supplemental field surveys (Section 9.0 of this ESA). Review of TEK information with each participating Aboriginal community is ongoing. Further details regarding the TEK studies can be found in Sections 3.2, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and Appendices 2 to 5 of this ESA.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) TEK studies were initiated with Dene Tha' First Nation, Beaver First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Duncan's First Nation in fall 2010. To date, Doig River First Nation and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement Society have not participated in any TEK studies for this proposed pipeline loop due to only recently agreed upon TEK collection protocols with NGTL and a lack of participant availability, respectively. Aboriginal groups who are potentially affected by the Project will be invited to participate in the 2011 supplemental field surveys (Section 9.0 of this ESA). Review of TEK information with each participating Aboriginal community is ongoing. Further details regarding the TEK studies can be found in Sections 3.2, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and Appendices 2 to 5 of this ESA.

Page 5-83

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.15 Social and Cultural Well-Being This subsection presents information on social and cultural well-being. Further information related to social and cultural well-being is found throughout Section 5.0 of this ESA, specifically Section 5.12.1. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to social and cultural well-being are discussed in Section 6.2.15. See Table 5.20 for a list of municipalities and Aboriginal communities considered in the socio-economic assessment and their distance from the three proposed pipeline loops.

The Kyklo Creek Section is located in the NRRM. In 2006, the total population of the NRRM was reported as 6,147 people. The median age in 2006 was 31.4 years and approximately 35% of the population was between the age of 25 and 44 years, which represents the largest age demographic. The workforce population was 3,920. The main industries include business services, agriculture and other resource- based industries, and other services. The main occupations include trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations, sales and service occupations and business, finance, and administration occupations. In 2006, approximately 19% of the population was Aboriginal and 5% was considered a visible minority, compared to approximately 5% and 25% respectively for the province (Statistics Canada 2010a).

The Kyklo Creek Section is located approximately 80 km east of Fort Nelson, which is the largest community in the NRRM. In 2006, the total population of Fort Nelson was reported as 4,514, which was an increase of 7.8% from 2001. In 2006, the median age was 30.5 years and approximately 36% of the population was between the ages of 25 and 44 years. The workforce population was 2,975. The main industries include business services, other services, and manufacturing. The main occupations include sales and service occupations, trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations and business, finance, and administration occupations. In 2006, approximately 14% of the population was Aboriginal and 7% was considered a visible minority, compared to approximately 5% and 25% respectively for the province (Statistics Canada 2010b).

The Kyklo Creek Section is located approximately 66 km southeast of Fort Nelson First Nation Fort Nelson IR No. 2. In February 2011, the total registered Fort Nelson First Nation population was 810 people, which is an increase of 4.7% over the 2006 registered population of 774 people. In 2011, it was estimated that 403 people live on the reserve (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada [INAC] 2011a). According to Statistics Canada (Statistics Canada 2007a), in 2006, 359 people lived on the Fort Nelson First Nation, which is a decrease of 7.9% from the 2001 on-reserve population. Using the 2006 Statistics Canada data, (Statistics Canada 2007a), approximately 25% of the population was between 0 and 14 years of age. The workforce population (population between 15 and 64 years) was 240 people, or 67.6% of the population. The median age was 28.9, which is 11.9 years younger than the province’s median age of 40.8. Males make up the majority of the population (55% males).

The Kyklo Creek Section is located approximately 105 km northeast of Prophet River First Nation Prophet River IR No. 4. In February 2011, the total registered Prophet River First Nation population was 249 people. It is estimated that 98 people live on the reserve (INAC 2011b). According to Statistics Canada (Statistics Canada 2007b), 86 people lived on the reserve in 2006, which is a decrease of 14% from the 2001 on-reserve population. Due to the small on-reserve population base, demographic breakdowns for the 2006 data are not available through Statistics Canada (Statistics Canada 2007b).

The Kyklo Creek Section is located approximately 118 km southwest of Dene Tha' First Nation Hay Lake IR No. 209. In February 2011, the total registered Dene Tha' First Nation population was 2,723, which is an increase of 15.2% over the 2004 registered population of 2,358 (INAC 2011c). According to INAC (INAC 2011c), 1,946 people lived in the three communities (Bushe River, Meander River and Chateh) in January 2011. Chateh is the largest community. Statistics Canada estimated that 1,640 people were living in the three communities in 2006, which is an increase of 3.8% from 2001 (Statistics Canada 2007c). Using the 2006 Statistics Canada data (Statistics Canada 2007c), approximately 29.6% of the population is between 0 and 14 years of age compared to 19% for Alberta. The workforce population (population between 15 and 64 years) was 890 people, or 55% of the population. The median age was 25.7, which is very young in comparison to the province’s median age of 36. Males make up the majority of the population (54% males).

Page 5-84

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

The portion of the Timberwolf Section from KPT 0.0 to KPT 41.4 is located in Mackenzie County. In 2006, the population of Mackenzie County was 10,002. The median age was 22.8 years and approximately 26% of the population was between the ages of 25 and 44 years. The workforce population was 4,460. The main industries include agriculture and other resource-based industries, business services, and construction. The main occupations include trades, transport, equipment operators and related occupations, business, finance, and administration occupations and sales and service occupations. In 2006, approximately 8% of the population was Aboriginal and 0.1% was considered a visible minority, compared to approximately 5.8% and 14% respectively for the province (Statistics Canada 2010c).

The portion of the Timberwolf Section from KPT 41.4 to KPT 49.8 is located in the County of Northern Lights. In 2006, the population of the County of Northern Lights was 3,772. The median age was 39.2 and approximately 26% of the population was between the ages of 25 and 44 years. The workforce population was 2,125. The main industries include agriculture and other resource-based industries, business services and other services. The main occupations include occupations unique to agriculture, trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations and sales and service occupations. In 2006, approximately 20% of the population was Aboriginal and 3% was considered a visible minority, compared to approximately 5.8% and 14% respectively for the province (Statistics Canada 2010d).

The Timberwolf Section is located approximately 30 km southwest of Rainbow Lake, which is the closest community. In 2006, the Town of Rainbow Lake had a total population of 965 individuals. The median age of the population in 2006 was 30.3 years old and approximately 39% of the population was between the ages of 25 and 44 years, which represents the largest age demographic. The main industries include agriculture and other resource-based industries, other services, and educational services. The main occupations include trades, transport, equipment operators and related occupations, sales and service occupations and business, finance, and administration occupations. In 2006, approximately 17% of the population was Aboriginal and 1% was considered a visible minority, compared to approximately 5.8% and 14% respectively for the province (Statistics Canada 2010e).

The Timberwolf Section is located approximately 160 km west of High Level. In 2006, the Town of High Level had a total population of 3,887. In 2006, the median age of the population was 27.5 years and approximately 35% of the population was between the ages of 25 and 44 years. The workforce population was 2,320. The main industries include other services, manufacturing, and agriculture and other resource-based industries. The main occupations include sales and service occupations, trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations, management occupations, and business, finance, and administration occupations. In 2006, approximately 22% of the population was Aboriginal and 3.4% was considered a visible minority compared to approximately 5.8 % and 14% respectively for the province (Statistics Canada 2010f).

The Timberwolf Section is located approximately 73 km southwest of Dene Tha' First Nation Hay Lake IR No. 209. Demographic information is presented above.

The Timberwolf Section is located approximately 208 km southwest of Beaver First Nation Boyer IR No. 164. In February 2011, the total registered Beaver First Nation population was 881 people. In 2010, it is estimated that 442 people live off the reserve and 426 people live on the reserve (INAC 2010a). Beaver First Nation Boyer IR No. 164 had a population of 180 in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2007d).

The Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 does not have a settlement land base and members do not reside in one location. The Town of Fort Vermilion is located about 227 km northeast of the Timberwolf Section. There is no statistical demographic information available for Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74.

The Timberwolf Section is located approximately 117 km west of Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement. In 2006, the Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement had a population of 216, a decrease of 62.8% from 2001 (Statistics Canada 2007e).

The Timberwolf Section is located approximately 159 km northeast of Doig River First Nation Doig River IR No. 206. In March 2011, the total registered Doig River First Nation population was 273 people. It is estimated that 129 people live on Doig River IR No. 206 (INAC 2011d). In 2006, Doig River First Nation Doig River IR No. 206 had a population of 124, which is a 10.8% decrease from 2001 (Statistics Canada 2007f).

Page 5-85

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

The Timberwolf Section is located approximately 223 km northwest of Duncan's First Nation Duncan's IR No. 151A. In February 2011, the total registered population of Duncan's First Nation was 235. In 2010, it is estimated that 99 people live off the reserve and 135 people live on the reserve (INAC 2010b). According to Statistics Canada (2007g), 102 people lived on the reserve in 2006. Due to the small on-reserve population base, demographic breakdowns for the 2006 data are not available through Statistics Canada (Statistics Canada 2007g).

The Cranberry Section is located in Clear Hills County. In 2006, the population of Clear Hills County was 2,714. The median age of the population was 31.9 years and approximately 23% of the population was between the ages of 25 and 44 years. The workforce population was 1,420. The main industries include agriculture and other resource-based industries, business services and other services. The main occupations include occupations unique to agriculture, trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations, and sales and service occupations. In 2006, approximately 10% of the population was Aboriginal and 0% of the population was considered a visible minority compared to approximately 5.8% and 14% respectively for the province (Statistics Canada 2010g).

The Cranberry Section is located approximately 76 km northwest of Manning. In 2006, the Town of Manning had a total population of 1,493. The median age of the population was 34.2 years and approximately 28% of the population was between the ages of 25 and 44 years. The workforce population was 790. The main industries include agriculture and other resource-based industries, other services and manufacturing. The main occupations include sales and service occupations, trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations, and occupations unique to the agricultural industry. In 2006, approximately 10% of the population was Aboriginal and 2.1% was considered a visible minority compared to approximately 5.8 % and 14% respectively for the province (Statistics Canada 2010h).

The Cranberry Section is located approximately 155 km southwest of Dene Tha' First Nation Bushe River IR No. 207. Demographic information is presented above.

The Cranberry Section is located approximately 184 km southwest of Beaver First Nation Boyer IR No. 164. Demographic information is presented above.

The Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 does not have a settlement land base and members do not reside in one location. The Town of Fort Vermilion is located about 193 km northeast of the Cranberry Section. There is no statistical demographic information available for Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74.

The Cranberry Section is located approximately 70 km southwest of Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement. Demographic information is presented above.

The Cranberry Section is located approximately 118 km northeast of Doig River First Nation Doig River IR No. 206. Demographic information is presented above.

The Cranberry Section is located approximately 143 km northwest of Duncan's First Nation Duncan's IR No. 151A. Demographic information is presented above.

5.16 Human Health Environmental elements that may be related to human health include water quality, air emissions and acoustic environment. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in Sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 of this ESA. Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to human health are discussed in Section 6.2.16 of this ESA.

5.17 Infrastructure and Services This subsection identifies infrastructure and services in the vicinity of the each Socio-economic RSA for the three proposed pipeline loops (see Figure 6.7). Potential Project-related effects and mitigation pertaining to infrastructure and services are discussed in Section 6.2.17 of this ESA.

Page 5-86

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.17.1 Transportation and Transmission 5.17.1.1 Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The Town of Fort Nelson is accessible by Highway 97 (the Alaska Highway), the Fort Nelson Airport and daily Greyhound Bus service (Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. 2011, NRRM 2011). BC Rail provides industrial transportation for local industries in the Fort Nelson area. The Socio-economic RSA for this pipeline loop can be accessed by industry access roads and by a number of chartered air services based out of Fort Nelson that provide remote access for industrial travel in the Northern Rockies area (NRRM 2011). A list of transportation infrastructure crossed by this proposed loop is provided in Table 5.23.

Airports The Northern Rockies Regional Airport is the main airport in the Socio-economic RSA and it is owned and operated by the NRRM. It is located about 7 km northeast of Fort Nelson and has one paved runway (1,951 m) with daily scheduled air service to Fort St. John and Grande Prairie, and connections to other BC and Alberta locations, as well as chartered air services. A long-term strategic plan is currently in place for the airport to meet increasing demand particularly due to the oil and gas sector (NRRM 2011). In addition, there are a number of private airfields in the Socio-economic RSA of this pipeline loop.

Roads and Transmission Lines There is a well-developed winter and access road system that services the Horn River area. These roads are multi-use (e.g., they are used for people to access their cabins, trap lines and hunting areas) however, they are primarily used by industry. The 173 km SYD Road serves as the main access road for oil and gas activities in northeast BC. Access is approximately 10 km south of Fort Nelson from Highway 97 and the Clark Lake Road. Goods will be transported by truck from the south using Highway 97 (the Alaska Highway) and will be transported to the construction sites using the SYD Road. Project-related goods such as piping will be staged in the Muskwa Heights Industrial Subdivision and, therefore, will not be transported through Fort Nelson. There are 3 road crossings (Table 5.23). No primary provincial roads will be crossed.

Fort Nelson, Fort Nelson First Nation and Prophet River First Nation are serviced by Highway No. 97, also known as the Alaska Highway. This highway is part of BC’s primary highway system. There is no permanent traffic measurement site located on Highway 97 north of Fort St. John; however, traffic count data is available for the year 2009 for the site 29 km south of Fort Nelson on Highway 97. The annual average daily traffic volume at this site was 910 vehicles (BC Ministry of Transportation [MOT] 2011). According to a traffic volume study completed by Tourism BC in 2003 (Tourism BC 2005), between mid-May and mid-September of 2003, 86% of the total traffic on Highway 97 north of Fort Nelson was non-commercial traffic.

The NRRM is undertaking a transportation corridor study that will examine, among other things, quality of life issues relating to traffic along the Alaska Highway, e.g., people crossing the road, design of intersections and the use of stop lights. The use of the Alaska Highway is accepted by the municipality and there is no plan to construct a by-pass road (Stevenson pers. comm.).

The Dene Tha' First Nation indicate that they use the Rainbow Lake to Fort Nelson winter road (Powerline Road) as a current travel route and are concerned with an increase in the amount of traffic that could occur on the Footprint (Calliou Group 2009). This winter road is located south of the proposed pipeline loop outside of the Socio-economic RSA for the Kyklo Creek Section and will not be used by activities associated with the proposed pipeline loop.

There are no transmission lines crossed by this proposed pipeline loop.

Water Crossings This proposed pipeline loop crosses two watercourses and two fish-bearing NCDs including Kyklo Creek. Further information regarding watercourse crossings identified for the Kyklo Creek Section can be found in Table 5.2 of this ESA.

Page 5-87

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Rail Fort Nelson is located at the northern railhead of the Canadian National (CN) Rail system. The CN terminal is located approximately 6 km south of Fort Nelson on Highway 97 approximately 80 km east of the proposed pipeline loop. No railway lines are crossed by this proposed pipeline loop.

5.17.1.2 Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Town of High Level is accessible by Highway while the Town of Rainbow Lake is accessible by Highways 35 and 58. Major trucking companies and Greyhound Canada provide ground transportation to both towns and nearby communities. Chartered air services based out of High Level and Rainbow Lake provide remote access for industrial travel in the Project area.

Airports The High Level airport is owned by the Town of High Level. It has one paved runway (1,524 m) with daily scheduled air service to Rainbow Lake and Edmonton. In anticipation of future needs, an extension of the apron and taxiway is being planned, and a request has been made to purchase land for a runway extension (Krause pers. comm.).

The Town of Rainbow Lake owns and operates the Rainbow Lake Airport. It has one paved runway (1,372 m) with daily scheduled air service to High Level and Edmonton.

Roads and Transmission Lines The primary highway access to Mackenzie County and High Level from the south is Alberta Highway 35 (the Mackenzie Highway). Rainbow Lake and the Dene Tha' First Nation community of Chateh are accessed by Alberta Highway 58 from High Level. Highway 35 and Highway 58 are the major roads servicing the oil and gas fields in the western part of the County.

There are two Automated Traffic Recorder (ATR) sites along the main access roads to Rainbow Lake. The Highway 35 ATR located 3.2 km south of the junction of Highway 35 and Highway 58 and south of High Level has an average annual daily traffic volume of 1,183 vehicles. The Highway 58 ATR located 9.9 km west of the junction of Highway 58 and Highway 35 and west of High level has an average annual daily traffic volume of 592 vehicles (Alberta Transportation 2009).

The main access to this proposed pipeline loop will be on Baseline Road (operated by Husky) which runs southwest of Rainbow Lake. During construction, materials will be brought up Highway 35 and Highway 58, then along Baseline Road to the construction sites. No concerns about Project-related traffic travelling near High Level or through Rainbow Lake were identified during consultation. Rainbow Lake did express concern about industry workers driving dangerously on roads used by the community (Offrey pers. comm.). There is no traffic count information currently available for Highways 35 and 58.

There is one trail and one road allowance held by ASRD, as well as five access roads crossed by the proposed pipeline loop (Table 5.23). No primary provincial roads will be crossed.

There are no transmission lines crossed by this proposed pipeline loop.

Water Crossings This proposed pipeline loop crosses 14 watercourses, including Chasm and Foulwater creeks and the Hay, Fontas and Little Buffalo Rivers. Further information regarding watercourse crossings identified for the Timberwolf Section can be found in Table 5.2 of this ESA.

Rail CN Railway has a general railway line in the vicinity of the Socio-economic RSA for this proposed pipeline loop with a major railway stop in High Level (CN Railway 2011) and approximately 250 km southeast of the proposed pipeline loop. No railway lines are crossed by this proposed pipeline loop.

Page 5-88

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.17.1.3 Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Town of Manning is accessible by Highway 35. Major trucking and bus companies as well as rail companies provide ground transportation to Manning. Air Services are also available to communities close to the Socio-economic RSA of the Cranberry Section.

Airports The Manning airport, located 3 km north of Manning, is owned and operated by the County of Northern Lights. It has one paved runway (1,676 m) with no scheduled air service. The Peace River airport, located 145 km south of the proposed pipeline loop, offers scheduled and charter flights to and from Edmonton and Calgary.

Roads and Transmission Lines Manning is accessed from the south by Alberta Highway 35. There is one ATR south of Manning on Highway 35. The ATR is located 3.7 km south of the junction of Highway 35 and Secondary Highway 691, and has an average annual daily traffic volume of 2,156 vehicles (Alberta Transportation 2009).

The main access to the to this proposed pipeline loop is by the Chinchaga Forestry Road, located approximately 23 km north of Manning off of Highway 35. During construction, materials will be brought up Highway 35 then along the Chinchaga Forestry Road to the construction sites. The County of Northern Lights has paved 5 km of the Chinchaga Forestry Road and has plans to pave the next 6 km during the summer of 2011 (Dechant, Miclette pers. comm.). A portion of the Chinchaga Forestry Road is owned by the County of Northern Lights and a portion by Apache.

There are nine access roads crossed by the proposed pipeline loop (Table 5.23). No primary provincial roads will be crossed.

Along the Cranberry Section, there are two radio tower sites, one adjacent to KPC 19.7 and one adjacent to KPC 19.8. One ATCO Electric overhead transmission line is crossed at KPC 6.3. Agreements and arrangements with the disposition holders will be made where required.

Water Crossings This proposed pipeline loop crosses four watercourses including unnamed tributaries to Midget Creek and Chinchaga River, as well as Sloat Creek. Further information regarding watercourse crossings identified for the Cranberry Section can be found in Table 5.2 of this ESA.

Rail CN Railway has a general railway line in the vicinity of the Socio-economic RSA for this proposed pipeline loop with stops in Manning and Hotchkiss (CN Railway 2011) approximately 140 km southeast of the proposed pipeline loop. No railway lines are crossed by this proposed pipeline loop.

TABLE 5.23

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE LOOPS

Operator Description Location1 Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Husky Oil Operations Limited Petroleum Development Road No 520 KPK 23.2 Husky Oil Operations Limited Petroleum Development Road No 520 KPK 26.5 Encana Corporation Access Road KPK 5.8 Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) ASRD Road Allowance KPT 1.0 Husky Oil Operations Limited Access Road KPT 1.0 Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd. Access Road KPT 3.7 ASRD Trail KPT 5.6 Husky Oil Operations Limited Access Road KPT 12.1 NuVista Energy Ltd. Access Road KPT 25.4

Page 5-89

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

TABLE 5.23 Cont'd

Operator Description Location1 Chinook Energy Inc. Access Road KPT 29.5 Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Apache Corp. Access Road KPC 1.1 Apache Corp. Access Road KPC 5.4 Apache Corp. Access Road KPC 10.1 Husky Oil Operations Limited Access Road KPC 14.6 Clear Hills County Forestry Road KPC 19.8 Husky Oil Operations Limited Access Road KPC 25.3 Apache Corp. Access Road KPC 28.1 Dee Three Exploration Ltd. Access Road KPC 30.3 Apache Corp. Access Road KPC 32.3 Source: Midwest 2011a,b,c Note: 1 Locations are approximate.

5.17.2 Navigable Waters All Pipeline Loops 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 and vehicle and equipment crossing methods. Two packages (i.e., one package to Transport Canada Pacific Region for Kyklo Creek Section and one package to Transport Canada Prairie and Northern Region for Timberwolf Section and Cranberry Section) including applications and requests for Transport Canada review will be submitted to Transport Canada for all of the proposed watercourse crossings along each of the proposed pipeline loops in May 2011.

5.17.3 Emergency and Health Care Services This subsection identifies emergency services and health care in the vicinity of the three proposed pipeline loops. STARS provides air emergency medical response throughout the entire Project area (STARS 2011).

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Responses to emergency events occurring within the NRRM are based out of Fort Nelson, BC (approximately 80 km west of this pipeline loop). The Fort Nelson fire department is composed of 5 full- time fire fighters and up to 20 part-time paid-on-call fire fighters. The department serves more than 6,000 people in an area approximately 117 km2 in size. The department operates three pumpers and one rescue unit, and provides protection to a large industrial area as well as both urban and rural residential areas (NRRM 2011). There is no 911 service in the NRRM.

The Fort Nelson Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachment is the closest police station to this proposed pipeline loop in BC. The BC Ambulance Service (BCAS) operates four vehicles and air ambulance services out of Fort Nelson which are available for use in the NRRM. BCAS services the oil and gas industry within the district. The Fort Nelson General Hospital houses 25 acute-care beds, 8 long-term care beds, a full lab and x-ray facilities, and is able to handle minor surgeries. The Town of Fort Nelson also has two dental clinics, two pharmacies, and the Northern Health Authority Health Unit (NRRM 2011).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Mackenzie County has three volunteer fire departments in La Crete, Fort Vermilion and Zama City. The closest fire halls to this proposed pipeline loop are located in Rainbow Lake (approximately 30 km east of KPT 0.0), Fort Nelson (approximately 160 km west of KPT 0.0) and High Level (approximately 160 km

Page 5-90

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 east of KPT 0.0). The Rainbow Lake Fire Hall operates two pumper trucks, one rescue unit and one utility vehicle (Town of Rainbow Lake 2009). Both Rainbow Lake and High Level have 911 services.

Hospitals in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop include the Rainbow Lake Community Health Centre and High Level Northwest Health Centre (Alberta Health Services 2010). The Rainbow Lake Community Health Centre has 24 hour on-call nurses available while the High Level Northwest Health Centre offers 24 hour emergency service. Rainbow Lake has ambulance services and air and ground ambulance services operated out of High Level provide paramedic services throughout the region (AlbertaFirst.com 2010a,b, STARS 2011).

The County of Northern Lights participates in the Peace Region Mutual Aid Agreement which provides for reciprocal support from all participants in the event that one party does not have adequate resources to deal with an emergency. Additionally, the County has an agreement with the Town of Peace River, which provides Regional Fire Chief Services.

RCMP detachments servicing the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop are located in High Level, Assumption, and Manning. A resident RCMP sub-detachment is available out of Rainbow Lake which is serviced out of the Assumption detachment.

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The closest emergency services to this proposed pipeline loop are located in Manning, approximately 76 km west of this proposed pipeline loop. In addition, the County of Northern Lights participates in the Peace Region Mutual Aid Agreement which provides for reciprocal support from all participants in the event that one party does not have adequate resources to deal with an emergency. Additionally, the County has an agreement with Peace River, which provides Regional Fire Chief Services.

The Manning and District Fire Department provides the closest fire services to this proposed pipeline loop (Manning is located approximately 76 km east of this proposed pipeline loop) and includes two pumper trucks, rescue truck, squad vehicle, tanker truck and rescue boat. The fire coverage area is approximately 2,800 km², and the rescue coverage area is approximately 19,000 km². Clear Hills County shares fire services in the Chinchaga area with the Manning Fire Department (Bjorklund pers. comm.).

The Manning Community Health Centre provides the closest medical aid in the vicinity of this proposed pipeline loop. The Manning Community Health Centre offers 24 hour emergency care including nursing, medical and rehabilitation care as well as 10 acute care beds and 16 long-term care beds (Town of Manning 2010). Air and ground ambulance service is available out of Manning (Town of Manning 2010). The County of Northern Lights identified a lack of doctors working out of the Health Centre.

The closest RCMP detachment is in Manning (Town of Manning 2010).

5.17.4 Waste Management Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) The NRRM operates a solid waste transfer site near Fort Nelson, BC. This site is primarily a domestic waste landfill site operating under a permit from the BC MOE for residential and light commercial users. Commercial users are required to fill out a Solid Waste Permit Application and must follow specific directions outlined in the permit for the discharge of waste (NRRM 2011). HAZCO Environmental and Decommissioning Services (HAZCO) operates a licensed Non-hazardous Industrial Landfill/BC Special Waste Treatment facility located approximately 20 km south of Fort Nelson. Solid non-hazardous waste is accepted for direct landfill disposal at this facility, as well as special waste suitable for bioremediation treatment before disposal (HAZCO 2006).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The nearest solid waste facilities to this proposed pipeline loop is a transfer station and landfill site located approximately 40 km east of Rainbow Lake (HAZCO 2006). This facility accepts all oilfield waste stream material to serve oil and gas producers. There are a number of transfer stations located within Mackenzie County including Zama and Fort Vermilion Transfer Stations (Mackenzie County 2010).

Page 5-91

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Clear Hills County operates landfill stations at Clear Prairie (NE 24-87-10 W6M) and Worsley (SE 25-87-8 W6M) (Clear Hills County 2010). These sites will accept small volumes of waste from industrial activities. Hazardous materials are not accepted at any of these locations. The transfer station closest to this proposed pipeline loop is located in Manning at NW 32-90-23 W5M (County of Northern Lights 2011). This station does not accept construction waste. HAZCO operates the East Peace Regional Landfill in Peace River (SW 2-84-20 W5M) which accepts drilling waste and solid non-hazardous industrial and solid non-dangerous oilfield waste for disposal and bioremediation (HAZCO 2006).

5.17.5 Commercial Accommodation and Recreational Campsites Commercial accommodation will not be required to house construction workers during the five-month construction period. Temporary construction camps located near each proposed loop are proposed or will be operational at the time of construction. At the outset of the construction phase, some commercial accommodation may be needed to house the personnel that will be conducting planning and preconstruction activities. The likely locations for these workers and staff would be Fort Nelson, High Level, Rainbow Lake and Manning.

Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) A temporary construction camp will be located on an existing disturbed area used as the temporary construction camp during the construction of the Horn River Mainline (Cabin Section). A wide range of commercial accommodation, mainly catering to industry, is available in Fort Nelson. As of November 2007, there were 12 hotel/motel/inns located in the town, with over 800 rooms available (Meadfield Consulting Inc. and Economic Growth Solutions Inc. 2007). Since 2007, additional commercial accommodation has been constructed. Vacancy rates are not maintained; however, it has been reported that historically the hotels and motels have a high occupancy rate. The high occupancy periods are generally between October and April. Recently commercial accommodation use has been levelling out more throughout the year because the oil and gas industry has been extending its season earlier in the fall and later into the spring (TERA 2010a).

In addition, there are between 221 and 235 outdoor camping spots within the town with full service hook-up (Meadfield Consulting Inc. and Economic Growth Solutions Inc. 2007).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) A temporary construction camp located in SE 1-109-10 W6M / SW 6-109-9 W6M, on an existing disturbed area on the Baseline Road southwest of Rainbow Lake, will be used to house the construction workforce on this proposed pipeline loop.

There is a wide range of commercial accommodation available in High Level. There are over 800 hotel rooms in 9 hotels, which mainly service the forestry and oil and gas sectors. Recently the vacancy rates have been high as a result of the closing of the Footner Mill and the economic downturn in the oil and gas industry (Krause pers. comm.). Near High Level, there are three campgrounds and approximately 55 outdoor camping spots, 40 with full service hook-up (High Level 2011).

In Rainbow Lake, the amount of commercial accommodation is limited. There are two hotels that mainly serve the oil and gas sector. There are also a number of open camps in the vicinity. There is one campground with 16 sites located 45 km south of the Town of Rainbow Lake (Town of Rainbow Lake 2009).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) A temporary construction camp located in NE 1-96-5 W6M / NW 6-96-4 W6M, on an existing disturbed area near the Chinchaga Forestry Road, will be used to house the construction workforce on this proposed pipeline loop.

Over 100 hotel rooms in four hotels are available in Manning. There are also 5 campgrounds in or close to Manning with approximately 70 sites, 55 with full service hook-up (Town of Manning 2010). Manning welcomes the use of commercial accommodation in town for the Project (Matthews pers. comm.).

Page 5-92

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.17.6 Recreational Services Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) Recreational facilities in Fort Nelson include a library, golf course, indoor aquatic centre, bowling alley, racquetball and tennis courts, skateboarding park, baseball diamond, arena, curling rink, museum, and movie theatre. Recreational activities such as hiking, boating, wildlife viewing, fishing, cross-country skiing, camping, and snowmobiling are found west of the Socio-economic RSA of the Kyklo Creek Section along the Alaska Highway corridor (Tourism Northern Rockies 2010). The Fort Nelson Snowmobile Club is active in the Fort Nelson area (BC Snowmobile Federation 2011).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) Recreational facilities in Rainbow Lake include baseball diamonds, beach, tennis and basketball courts, playgrounds, golf course, arena, and a library. During the winter cross-country ski trails and snowmobile trails are abundant in the area (Town of Rainbow Lake 2009). A multi-use facility in town houses a curling club, skating rinks and a library (AlbertaFirst.com 2010a). High Level has a variety of recreational facilities including an indoor arena, outdoor ice rink, indoor swimming pool, skateboard park, curling rink, tennis courts, golf course, baseball diamonds and gymnasiums. Recreational activities such as bird watching, photography, cross country skiing, hiking trails, snowmobiling, fishing, and hunting are also available (AlbertaFirst.com 2010b).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) Recreational facilities in Manning include baseball diamonds, a curling rink, a sports centre, a golf course, a gym, playgrounds, a swimming pool, tennis courts, walking trails, a ski hill, a museum, and a library (Discover the Peace Country 2011, Town of Manning 2010).

5.17.7 Educational Services Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section) In Fort Nelson, School District 81 serves students from Fort Nelson and the NRRM, and operates 2 elementary, 1 middle and 1 secondary school in Fort Nelson. In addition, School District 81 operates a rural school approximately 196 km west of Fort Nelson for Kindergarten. Northern Lights College operates a campus in Fort Nelson, offering career and college preparation, university arts and sciences, applied business technology and welding. The Workforce Training/Continuing Education department also offers several courses that allow students to obtain safety and other certification needed to work in the oil and gas or other industries. Campus services include Aboriginal Education services, a library, bookstore, computer/Internet access, recruiting and financial aid (Northern Lights College 2011).

Northwest Mainline (Timberwolf Section) The Fort Vermilion School Division operates 15 schools including elementary, middle and secondary schools in High Level, Rainbow Lake and other surrounding communities. Northern Lakes College has a campus in High Level, offering academic upgrading, one-year certificate and diploma programs as well as university classes. Programs offered include apprenticeship training, business administration, emergency technicians and health care aides, nursing, teaching as well as a university transfer program. The College also offers a Petroleum Employment Training program which began in 1999 when BP Canada wanted to hire local Aboriginal people but found there was a substantial gap between their minimum employment standard and the qualifications of most local people. The program is a partnership between major oil companies and First Nation and Métis Settlements in the region. The program targets the production side of the oil industry and with the main objectives identified by industry as employability and learning to learn (Northern Lakes College 2011).

Tanghe Creek Lateral Loop No. 2 (Cranberry Section) The Peace River School Division operates an elementary school, a kindergarten to grade nine separate school and a High School in Manning. Northern Lakes College has a campus in Manning offering university transfer programs, career programs, workforce development, academic upgrading, and community learning services (Northern Lakes College 2011).

Page 5-93

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.18 Employment and Economy Potential effects of employment and economy arising from the construction and operation of the Project, and mitigation pertaining to employment and economy are discussed in Section 6.2.18 of this ESA. A quantitative economic effects analysis of the Project has not yet been completed and will be submitted separately as part of the additional socio-economic data collection (see Section 9.0 of this ESA).

5.18.1 Existing Local and Regional Employment The NRRM had an experienced labour force of 3,890 in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 40% (52% in BC). Most employed individuals worked in the trades and transport as equipment operators and related occupations (25%), while 23% worked in sales and service occupations, and 15% were employed in business, finance and administration occupations. The unemployment rate was 7.3%, compared to 6.0% for BC. The participation rate was 84.2% compared to 65.6% for BC. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the NRRM was reported to be $35,521 and the median household income was reported to be $89,309 (Statistics Canada 2010a).

The town of Fort Nelson, BC had an experienced labour force of 2,960 people in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 years with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 28% (52% in BC). Most employed individuals worked in sales and service occupations, transport and equipment operations and related occupations (26%), while 23% worked in trade and transport as equipment operators and related occupations, and 16% were employed in business, finance and administration occupations. The unemployment rate for the town was 5.9% compared to 6.0% for BC. The participation rate was 87.2% compared to 65.6% for BC. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the town of Fort Nelson was reported to be $38,508, and the median household income was reported to be $91,035 (Statistics Canada 2010b).

The Fort Nelson First Nation Fort Nelson IR No. 2 had an experienced labour force of 145 people in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 years with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 44% (52% in BC). Most employed individuals worked in trade and transport as equipment operators and related occupations (24%), while 21% worked in sales and service occupations, transport and equipment operations and related occupations and 17% were employed in agriculture and other resource-based industries. The unemployment rate was 20% compared to 6.0% for BC. The participation rate was 56.6% compared to 65.6% for BC. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 was reported to be $13,600, and the median household income was reported to be $25,280 (Statistics Canada 2007a).

The Dene Tha' First Nation had an on-reserve experienced labour force of 430 people in 2006. Approximately 90% of individuals 15 years and older did not have a certificate, diploma or degree. Most employed individuals (32%) worked in trades and transport as an equipment operator and in related occupations. The unemployment rate was 32%, compared to 4.3% for Alberta. The participation rate was 42.9% compared to 68.3% for Alberta. The median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the Dene Tha' First Nation was reported to be $8,656 (Statistics Canada 2007c).

Mackenzie County had an experienced labour force of 4,435 people in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 years with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 19% (50% in Alberta). Most employed individuals worked in trade and transport as equipment operators and related occupations (28%), while 18% worked in sales and service occupations and 16% worked in agriculture and other resource-based industries. The employment and unemployment rates for the County were 67.7% and 3.3% respectively, compared to 70.9% and 4.3% for Alberta as a whole. The participation rate was 70.0% compared to 74.0% for Alberta. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the County was reported to be $23,212 and the median household income was reported to be $57,693 (Statistics Canada 2010c).

Rainbow Lake had an experienced labour force of 600 people in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 years with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 47% (50% in Alberta). Most employed individuals worked in trade and transport as equipment operators and related occupations (21%), while 17% worked in sales and service occupations and 15% worked in business, finance and administration occupations. The employment and

Page 5-94

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238 unemployment rates for the town were 81.7% and 4.9% respectively, compared to 70.9% and 4.3% for Alberta as a whole. The participation rate was 85.9% compared to 74.0% for Alberta. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the town was reported to be $47,906 and the median household income was reported to be $128,152 (Statistics Canada 2010e).

High Level had an experienced labour force of 2,320 people in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 years with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 45% (50% in Alberta). Most employed individuals worked in sales and service occupations (25%), while 19% worked in trades and transport as equipment operators and related occupations and 13% worked in management occupations and business, finance and administration occupations. The employment and unemployment rates for the town were 97.4% and 2.6% respectively, compared to 70.9% and 4.3% for Alberta as a whole. The participation rate was 81.1% compared to 74.0% for Alberta. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the town was reported to be $34,398 and the median household income was reported to be $80,547 (Statistics Canada 2010f).

The County of Northern Lights had an experienced labour force of 2,115 people in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 years with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 34% (50% in Alberta). Most employed individuals worked in agriculture and other resource-based industries (24%), while 22% worked in trade and transport as equipment operators and related occupations and 17% worked in sales and service occupations. The employment and unemployment rates for the County were 69.3% and 3.8% respectively, compared to 70.9% and 4.3% for Alberta as a whole. The participation rate was 72.0% compared to 74.0% for Alberta. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the County was reported to be $23,431 and the median household income was reported to be $64,330 (Statistics Canada 2010d).

Clear Hills County had an experienced labour force of 1,410 people in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 years with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 22% (50% in Alberta). Most employed individuals worked in agriculture and other resource-based industries (39%), while 21% worked in trades, transport and equipment operations and related occupations (28%), and 12% worked in sales and service occupations. The employment and unemployment rates for the County were 97.5% and 2.5% respectively, compared to 70.9% and 4.3% for Alberta as a whole. The participation rate was 74.7% compared to 74.0% for Alberta as a whole. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the County was reported to be $22,480 and the median household income was reported to be $47,681 (Statistics Canada 2010g).

Manning had an experienced labour force of 785 people in 2006. The percentage of individuals older than the age of 15 years with a trade, post-secondary certificate, diploma or university degree during the 2006 census was 45% (50% in Alberta). Most employed individuals worked in sales and service occupations (22%), while 17% worked in trades, transport and equipment operations and related occupations and 17% worked in agriculture and other resource-based industries. The employment and unemployment rates for the town were 71.4% and 3.2% respectively, compared to 70.9% and 4.3% for Alberta as a whole. The participation rate was 74.2% compared to 74.0% for Alberta. In 2005, the median total annual income of individuals over age 15 in the town was reported to be $21,499 and the median household income was reported to be $51,967 (Statistics Canada 2010h).

Doig River First Nation Doig River IR No. 206 had an on-reserve experienced labour force of 85 people in 2006. According to Statistics Canada (2007f), 76.5% of the population 15 years and older did not have Grade 12 education. The unemployment rate was 11.5% and the labour force participation rate was 52.9% compared to a 6% unemployment rate and a 65% participation rate for BC. In 2006, 37.5% of the on-reserve population in the workforce worked in trades, transport and equipment operations and in related occupations.

Workforce and educational attainment statistics are not available for the 2006 census year for Prophet River First Nation, Beaver First Nation, Duncan's First Nation, Fort Vermilion Métis Local 74 and Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement (Statistics Canada 2007b,d,e,g).

Page 5-95

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.18.2 Local Employment Development Plans There are no local employment development plans for municipalities or Aboriginal communities considered in the Project assessment.

5.18.3 Anticipated Levels of Local and Regional Economic Participation Construction activities are expected to occur over a 20 week period for the Kyklo Creek Section, a 10 week period for the Timberwolf Section and a 7 week period for the Cranberry Section with an in-service date of April 2013. A total workforce of between 450 and 550 persons is anticipated for each proposed pipeline loop. The Project primarily offers short-term activity expenditure during a short construction period. Peak worker requirements are expected to last approximately one month.

Currently no quantitative estimate of anticipated levels of local and regional economic participation in the Project are available. The Project primarily offers short-term activity expenditure during a short construction period. Peak worker requirements are expected to last a month. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal businesses have expressed desire to obtain contracts and to benefit from the construction of the Northwest Mainline Expansion. Where qualified local contractors are available, they will have the opportunity to participate in the contracting process established by NGTL. It is anticipated that local, regional, and Aboriginal businesses will participate by providing various goods, services and technical expertise and will realize economic benefits from the construction phase. Hotels and restaurants have already been used during planning and consultation. Preconstruction activities related to survey, engineering investigations, environmental studies, archaeological studies and TLU have already generated short-term job opportunities and training for some Aboriginal Communities, as well as local procurement in some of the municipalities (e.g., NRRM, Rainbow Lake, High Level, Manning). It is expected that trappers will obtain some work related to beaver control prior to construction. In addition, to date, local businesses have already been engaged on some aspects of the three proposed pipeline loops. It is anticipated that these roles will be continued during the construction and post-construction phases. Furthermore, some services may be tendered by the prime pipeline contractor with input from NGTL to ensure that Aboriginal-owned land local businesses are considered.

To facilitate qualified Aboriginal and local businesses obtaining contracts, a number of enhancement measures will be implemented by NGTL. These include: on-going discussions with each Aboriginal community considered in this assessment to better understand business capabilities and to provide advance notice about contract and job opportunities and their requirements; ensuring businesses are made aware of the sub-contracting tendering processes and requirements well in advance; and the inclusion of an Aboriginal participation component in subcontracts and considering this in the bid evaluation. A full list of measures to enhance local participation can be found in Tables 4.4 and 4.6 in Appendix 7 of this ESA.

Additionally, based on the success of Natural Resource Field Training Program implemented in 2009/2010 for the Horn River Mainline (Cabin Section), NGTL will pursue a similar program for the Kyklo Creek Section. The program will provide opportunity for participating youth to obtain two tickets (H2S Alive and Petroleum Safety Training), as well as acquire skills (Bear Aware, general forestry safety, job safety, introduction to timber cruising, use of equipment such as map reading, compass reading, DBH tape and GPS). Traditional values will also be incorporated into the program with youth spending time in the bush with mentors and elders at the end of each work week.

Page 5-96

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

5.19 References 5.19.1 Personal Communications TERA wishes to acknowledge those people identified in the Personal Communications for their assistance in supplying information and comments incorporated into this report.

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

Bjorklund, A. County of Northern Lights. Manning, Alberta

Bunn, L. Forest Health Technician. Forestry Program / Wildfire Management, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Peace River, Alberta.

Clayton, T. Senior Fisheries Biologist, serving the Lethbridge area. Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Lethbridge, Alberta.

Crumblin, C. North East Invasive Plant Council. Fort St. John, BC.

Dechant, G. Economic Development and Planning, County of Northern Lights. Manning, Alberta.

Forsberg, L. Wapiti Sports. Fort Nelson, BC.

Gerwing, J. Fish and Wildlife Officer, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. High Level, Alberta.

Krause, D. Chief Administrative Officer, Town of High Level. High Level, Alberta.

Matthews, G. Town of Manning. Manning, Alberta.

Miclette, E. Economic Development and Planning, County of Northern Lights. Manning, Alberta.

Moyles, D. Senior Area Wildlife Biologist, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Peace River, Alberta.

Offrey, R. Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Rainbow Lake. Rainbow Lake, Alberta

Schram, B. Fish and Wildlife Officer, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Manning, Alberta.

Stevenson, J. Planning and Development, Northern Rockies Regional Municipality. Fort Nelson, BC.

5.19.2 Literature Cited Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1998. The Canadian System of Soil Classification - Third Edition. Website: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/taxa/cssc3/intro.html. Accessed: February 2011.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2005a. Surface Water Quality Risk for the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Website: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex10338. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2005b. Groundwater Quality Risk for the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Website: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex10339. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2005c. Aquifer Vulnerability Index for the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Website: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex10331. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties and Alberta Environment. 2009. Rural Municipal Action on Climate Change. February 13, 2009.

Page 5-97

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2010a. List of all Elements in Alberta. Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre. March 2010. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/ heritageinfocentre/datarequests/docs/List_of_All_Elements_MARCH_2010.xls.

Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2010b. Animal - Tracking and Watch Lists. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/animals/default.aspx.

Alberta Culture and Community Spirit. 2010. Listing of Historic Resources. Cultural Facilities and Historical Resources Division, Alberta Culture and Community Spirit, Edmonton.

Alberta Energy. 2010a. Coal Activity Map. Website: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/xdata/mapProducts/coal.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Energy. 2010b. Land Status Automated System (LSAS). Project-specific search request completed October 2010.

Alberta Energy. 2010c. Interactive Coal Map. Website: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/LandAccess/1072.asp. Accessed: December 2010.

Alberta Energy and Natural Resources. 1970+. Phase 3 Forest Inventory Maps. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Energy and Resources Conservation Board. 2010. ST-45 Coal Mine Atlas: Operating and Abandoned Coal Mines in Alberta. Website: http://www.ercb.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_240_2579665_0_0_18/. Accessed: October 2010.

Alberta Environment. 1991. Listings of springs in Alberta. 46 pp.

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 Environment. 2006. Peace River Management Area. Water Act Code of Practice Management Area Maps.

Alberta Environment. 2007. Current and future water use in Alberta. Peace/Slave River Basin. Website: http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/egovdocs/2007/alen/164708.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Environment. 2008. Alberta Air Emissions Trends and Projections. Website: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7964.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

Alberta Environment. 2010. Irrigation Districts in Alberta. Website: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/irr4475. Accessed: February 2011.

Alberta Environment. 2011a. Flood Hazard Map Application. Website: http://www.envinfo.gov.ab.ca/FloodHazard. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Environment. 2011b. Groundwater Information System. Website: http://environment.alberta.ca/1295.html. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Environment. 2011c. Alberta's River Basins. Website: http://www.environment.alberta.ca/apps/basins/Default.aspx. Accessed: January 2011.

Alberta Government. 2009. Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils. Website: http://www.waterforlife.alberta.ca/543.html. Accessed: February 2011.

Alberta Health Services. 2010. Hospitals and Health Facilities. Website: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/files/map-ahs-zones.pdf. Accessed: December 2010.

Page 5-98

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2009. Tracked Elements Listed by Natural Subregions - November 2009. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/datarequests/docs/Tracked_Elements_by_Natural_S ubregions_2009_NOVEMBER.xls. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Snowmobile Association. 2011. Alberta Snowmobile Association 2010 Website: http://www.altasnowmobile.ab.ca/admin/contentx/default.cfm?h=1&grp=1&PageId=1. Accessed: February 2011.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2010. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta: Update 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 30. Edmonton, Alberta. 88 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2005a. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species. Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, Alberta.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2005b. Status of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in Alberta. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 57. Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the Alberta Conservation Association.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2007. Smoky Area Land Management Referral Map. 1:250,000 map.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009a. Historic Wildfire Perimeters from 1931-2008.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009b. Mountain Pine Beetle Management Zones Map. Website: http://www.mpb.alberta.ca/Files/pdf/MountainPineBeetle-ManagementZones2009.pdf. Accessed: January 2011.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009c. Important Migratory Staging Zones. Draft 1 page + digital data files.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009d. Species Assessed by Alberta's Endangered Species Conservation Committee: Short List. Updated December 3, 2009. 2 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2009e. Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations. Website: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/. Accessed:December 2010.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010a. Forest Management Branch Directive No. 2010-01. Forestry Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Website: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsPublications/Directives/documents/2010-01- MountainPineBeetle-LogManagement-Feb2010.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010b. Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System Records. Received from ASRD Peace River Office (D. Moyles).

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010c. Alberta Guide to Hunting Regulations. Website: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs/. Accessed: January 2011.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010d. Alberta Guide to Trapping Regulations. Website: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/trappingregs/wmu-descriptions.htm. Accessed: January 2011.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2011. The 2010 General Status of Alberta Wild Species. Website: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BiodiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatus/GeneralStatusof AlbertaWildSpecies2010/Search.aspx. Accessed: April 2011.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas of Alberta. Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/default.aspx. Accessed: April 2011.

Page 5-99

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2010. Parks and Protected Areas (including Crown Reservations). Website: http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/landreferencemanual/docs/pasites_pdfmap.pdf. Accessed: December 2010.

Alberta Transportation. 2009. The Automated Traffic Recorder Monthly Volume Report 2009. Website: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType181/production/ATRMADT2009.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

AlbertaFirst.com. 2010a. AlbertaFirst.com Rainbow Lake Profile. Website: http://www.albertafirst.com/profiles/statspack/20454.html. Accessed: December 2010.

AlbertaFirst.com. 2010b. AlbertaFirst.com High Level Profile. Website: http://www.albertafirst.com/profiles/statspack/20426.html. Accessed: December 2010.

Anderson, R.B. 1999. Peatland habitat use and selection by woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in northern Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2003a. Encana Ekwan Pipeline Inc. Ekwan Pipeline Project Spring Rare Plant Survey. July 2003.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2003b. Encana Ekwan Pipeline Inc. Ekwan Pipeline Project Summer Rare Plant Survey. August 2003.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2003c. Encana Ekwan Pipeline Inc. Ekwan Pipeline Project Wildlife Field Survey Report. July 2003.

Backmeyer, R. 2004. Moose and Boreal Caribou Inventory Management Units 7-55 and 7-56. February 2004. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Environmental Stewardship Division, Peace Region. 6 pp.

Banfield, A.W.G. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 438 pp.

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

Beckingham, J. D. and J. H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre. Vancouver, University of BC Press.

Berry, D.K. 1995. Alberta's Walleye Management and Recovery Plan. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Fisheries Management Division. Publication No. T/310. Edmonton, Alberta. 32 pp.

Berry, D.K. 1998. Alberta’s Arctic Grayling Management and Recovery Plan. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Fisheries Management Division. Edmonton, Alberta, 27 pp.

Berry, D.K. 1999. Alberta’s Northern Pike Management and Recovery Plan. Alberta Environment Protection, Natural Resources Service. Number T/459, Edmonton, Alberta. 22 pp.

Bond, W.K., K.W. Cox, T. Herberlein, E.W. Manning, D.R. Witty and D.A. Young. 1992 Wetland Evaluation Guide: Final Report of the Wetlands are not Wastelands Project. North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa. Sustaining Wetlands Issues Paper No. 1992 1.

Borneuf, D. 1983. Springs of Alberta. Alberta Research Council. Earth Sciences Report 82-3. 95 pp.

Bradshaw, C.J.A., D.M. Hebert, A.B. Rippin, and S. Boutin. 1995. Winter peatland habitat selection by woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Can. J. Zool. 73: 1567-1574.

Page 5-100

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Breault, A., B. Harrison and S. Shisko. 2007. Breeding Distribution and Abundance of Trumpeter Swans (Cygnus buccinator) in British Columbia, Summer 2005. Technical Report Series No. 475. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region. 34pp.

British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas. 2011. Data accessed from NatureCounts, a node of the Avian Knowledge Network, Bird Studies Canada. Website: http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/english/index.jsp. Accessed: April 2011.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2009. Conservation Data Centre Mapping Service. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/ims.htm Accessed: July 2009.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2010a. Conservation Data Centre Mapping Service. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/ims.htm. Accessed: December 2010.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2010b. Provincial Red and Blue Lists. Ministry of Environment. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/red-blue.html. Accessed: December 2010.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2011. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Ministries of Sustainable Resource Management and Water, Land and Air Protection. Website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/. Accessed: February 2011.

British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau. 1997. Fort Nelson Land and Resource Management Plan. Website: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/fortstjohn/fort_nelson/index.html. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2000. Irrigated Areas in British Columbia. Resource Management Branch Factsheet No. 550.100-1.

British Columbia Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources. 2009a. Operating Mines and Selected Major Exploration Projects in British Columbia 2008. Website: http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/PublicationsCatalogue/OpenFiles/2009/Document s/OF2009-1.pdf. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. 2009b. Figures for Coal in B.C. Website: http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/Coal/CoalBC/FiguresandTables/Pages/Figure1.as px. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1994. An Aquifer classification System for Ground Water Management in British Columbia. Water Management Division, Hydrology Branch. Victoria, BC.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2004. 2000 Air Emissions Inventory Report. Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/bcairquality/reports/pdfs/2000_inven_rep.pdf. Accessed: March 2011

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2007. Water Stewardship Division. Floodplain Mapping Program. Website:http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searches/fpm/reports/index.html. Accessed: February 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2008. Caribou Distribution in British Columbia by Ecotype. Map. December 2008.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2009a. Conservation Framework Setting Goals, assigning priorities and identifying preliminary conservation actions for species in British Columbia. 19 pp. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/conservationframework/documents/Species_CF_Methodology_v2.11_2 009-08-24.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

Page 5-101

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2009b. Conservation Framework Conservation Priorities for Species and Ecosystems, Primer. 12 pp. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/conservationframework/documents/CF_Primer.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010a. BC Watershed Groups - Key Map. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/watershed_atlas_maps/maps/index.html. Accessed: December 2010.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010b. Water Resources Atlas. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searches/wrbc/. Accessed: December 2010.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010c. B.C. Air Quality. Website: http://www.bcairquality.ca/readings/index.html. Accessed: December 2010.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010d. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/toolintro.html. Accessed: December 2010.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010e. Peace Region Selected Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Least-Risk Windows - March 2010. 1 pg.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010f. 2010-2012 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2010g. 2009-2011 Freshwater Fishing Regulations Synopsis. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2011a. Fisheries Inventory Data Queries Tool (FIDQ). Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/fidq/index.html. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2011b. Ungulate Winter Ranges. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/uwr/approved_uwr.html. Accessed: March 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2011c. Wildlife Habitat Areas. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cgi-bin/apps/faw/wharesult.cgi?search=slap_region&wlap=Peace. Accessed: March 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2011d. BC Parks. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1995. Bark Beetle Management Guidebook. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/beetle/betletoc.htm. Accessed: December 2010.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2006. Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area: Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determination. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa08/tsr3/08ts06ra.pdf. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2007. Vegetation Resources Inventory Data Dictionary (Multiple Table Relationship draft version 1.0e). Website:http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/vridata/standards/datadictionary/rpt_vri_datadict0907_draft1 .0e.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2008. Site Index Estimates by Site Series: Report by Biogeoclimatic Unit. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/sibec/reports/sisubyBgcUnit2008.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2010a. Emergency Bark Beetle Management Area and Strategic Planning Maps. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/maps/ebbma/. Accessed: December 2010.

Page 5-102

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2010b. Fort Nelson Forest District. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/dfn/#programs. Accessed: December 2010.

British Columbia Ministry of Natural Resource Operations. 2010. 2010-2012 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/. Accessed: February 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2011. Integrated Land Management Bureau iMapBC Internet Mapping Application. Website: http://webmaps.gov.bc.ca/imfx/imf.jsp?site=imapbc. Accessed: January 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 2002. Terrestrial Information Branch. Vegetation Resource Inventory: The BC Land Cover Classification Scheme, Version 1.3. Website: http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/teveg/bcland2k2/landcover-02.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation. 2011. Traffic Volumes Data. Site P-44-4NS. Website: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/trafficData/tradas/tradas.asp. Accessed: February 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002. Wood Bison. Wildlife at Risk in British Columbia. Brochure. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/wbison.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works. WLAP BMP Series. March 2004. 168 pp. Website: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/iswstdsbpsmarch2004.pdf.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2005. 2000 British Columbia Emissions Inventory of Criteria Air Contaminants: Result Highlights. Website: http://www.bcairquality.ca/reports/pdfs/2000_em_inv_highlights.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

British Columbia Snowmobile Federation. 2011. Club Contact List. Website: http://www.bcsf.org/clubs/club-contact-info/. Accessed: January 2011.

Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands. 2010. The List of Wetlands of International Importance. Website: http://ramsar.org/. Accessed: January 2011.

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

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia. Volumes 1-4. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

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

Canadian Heritage Rivers System. 2010. The Rivers. Website: http://www.chrs.ca/Rivers_e.htm. Accessed: April 2011.

Canadian National Railway Company. 2011. Company Website: http://www.cn.ca/en/index.htm. Accessed: January 2011.

Clayton, K. M. 2000. Status of the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) in Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 28. 15 pp.

Page 5-103

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Clean Air Strategic Alliance. 2009. Airshed Zones. Website: http://www.casahome.org/Partners/AirshedZones/AlbertaAirshedZones.aspx. Accessed: April 2011.

Clear Hills County. 1999. Bylaw No. 48. A Bylaw of the Municipal District of Clear Hills No. 21. in the Province of Alberta, for the Purpose of Enacting the Municipal District of Clear Hills No. 21. Municipal Development Plan.

Clear Hills County. 2010. Clear Hills County Website: http://www.clearhillscounty.ab.ca/. Accessed: April 20111.

Clear Hills Watershed Initiative. 2008. Clear Hills Watershed Initiative State of the Watershed 2008.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2002. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 91 pp. Website: http://dsp- psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-166-2002E.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2006. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 28 pp. Website: http://dsp- psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-495-2006E.pdf.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 25pp. Website: http://dsp- psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/ec/CW69-14-536-2008E.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2008. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 24pp. Website: http://dsp- psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/ec/CW69-14-7-2008E.pdf. Accessed: April 2011

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2009. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus, Western population and Magdalen Islands population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 42 pp. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm http://dsp- psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2009/ec/CW69-14-575-2009E.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2010. COSEWIC Wildlife Species Assessments (detailed version), November 2010. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/rpts/Detailed_Species_Assessments_e.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

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

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2011b. The COSEWIC Candidate List. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm#p3. Accessed: January 2011.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2011c. Canadian Species at Risk. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm. Accessed: April 2011.

County of Northern Lights. 2010. County of Northern Lights Municipal Development Plan Bylaw # 10-61- 270 October 2010. Website: http://www.mdnorth22.ab.ca/forms/New%20MDP.pdf. Accessed: January 2011.

County of Northern Lights. 2011. County of Northern Lights Website: http://www.mdnorth22.ab.ca/index.php?page=webpages&menuid=77&id=42&action=displaypage &side=1. Accessed: March 2011.

Page 5-104

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Cranston, R., D. Ralph and B. Wikeem. 2002. Field Guide to Noxious and Other Selected Weeds of British Columbia. Fourth Edition. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Discover the Peace Country. 2011. Discover the Peace Country Visitor's Guide. Website: http://www.discoverthepeacecountry.com/. Accessed: October 2010.

Ducks Unlimited and Canadian Wildlife Service. 2005. Trumpeter Swan Inventory. Science and Community Environmental Fund. Digital Data obtained from the BC Oil and Gas Commission October 2009.

Dzus, E. 2001. Status of the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta. Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 30. Alberta Environment / Alberta Conservation Association. Edmonton, Alberta.

Environment Canada. 2010a. Canadian Climate Normals 1971 - 2000. Website: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html. Accessed: February 2011.

Environment Canada. 2010b. Station Information Map Viewer. Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/eaudouce- freshwater/default.asp?lang=En&n=8C9B7D0C-1. Accessed: February 2011.

Environment Canada. 2010c. Climate Change. Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=2967C31D-1. Accessed: February 2011.

Environment Canada. 2010d. Species at Risk Public Registry. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm. Accessed: February 2011.

Environment Canada. 2011a. Archived Hydrometric Data Hay River near Meander (Station No. 07OB003) Monthly Mean Discharge (m3/s). Website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/index-eng.cfm. Accessed: January 2011.

Environment Canada. 2011b. Archived Hydrometric Data Fontas River near Fort Nelson (Station No. 10CA001) Monthly Mean Discharge (m3/s). Website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/index-eng.cfm. Accessed: January 2011.

Environment Canada. 2011c. Archived Hydrometric Data Chinchaga River near High Level (Station No. 07OC001) Monthly Mean Discharge (m3/s). Website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/index-eng.cfm. Accessed: January 2011.

Environment Canada. 2011d. Archived Hydrometric Data Notikewin River near Manning (Station No. 07HC001) Monthly Mean Discharge (m3/s). Website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/index-eng.cfm. Accessed: January 2011.

Environment Canada. 2011e. National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) Database. Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/. Accessed: March 2011

Environment Canada 2011f. Species at Risk. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm. Accessed: April 2011.

Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 2007. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta, A Second Look. P. 190 of 626 pp.

Ferbey, T., A.S. Hickin, T.E. Demchuk, and V.M. Levson. 2005. Northeast British Columbia Aggregate Mapping Program: a summary of selected aggregate occurrences northeast of Fort Nelson in Summary of Activities 2005, BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, pages 60-68.

Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System. 2011. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Area-specific search request and website: http://xnet.env.gov.ab.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=fw_mis_pub. Accessed: January 2011.

Page 5-105

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Foothills Research Institute. 2009. Grizzly Bear Resource Selection Function Models. Data provided by the Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Program.

Fort Nelson Forest District. 2008. Forest Health Strategy Fort Nelson TSA 2008/09. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Forest_Health/TSA_FH_Strategies/DFN_Fores t%20Health%20Strategy%20and%20Tactical%20Plan_2008.pdf. Accessed: April 2011.

Fox, J.C., R.J.H. Richardson, G. Gowan and P.C. Sham. 1987. Surficial geology of the Peace River - High Level area, Alberta.

Freshwater Fisheries Society of British Columbia. 2011. Fish/Habitat Wizard. Website: http://www.fishwizard.com/default.htm. Accessed: January 2011.

Fulton, R.J. 1995. Surficial materials of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, "A" Series 1:5,000,000 Map.

GeoBC. 2010. iMapBC. Integrated Land Management Bureau - Land and Resource Data Warehouse. Website: http://www.lrdw.ca. Accessed: January 2011.

Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2002. Biophysical Inventory of Chinchaga Wildland Park. Submitted to: Alberta Community Development Parks and Protected Areas, Valleyview, Alberta. March 15, 2002. 65 Pp.

Government of Alberta. 2010a. Upstream Oil and Gas Operating Conditions for the Enhanced Approval Process.

Government of Alberta. 2010b. Wildlife Sensitivity Maps. Digital Spatial Data Layers. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Website: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsPublications/Maps/WildlifeSensitivityMaps/Default.aspx.

Government of Alberta. 2010c. Upstream Oil and Gas Approval Standards for the Enhanced Approval Process.

Government of Alberta. 2010d. 2010/11 Hay Zama Wood Bison Hunting Season. Fact Sheet. Publication No. I/454. Printed July 2010. Website: http://www.mywildalberta.com/documents/2010- 11HayZamaWoodBison-HuntingSeasonFactSheet-July2010.pdf.

Government of Canada. 1986. Canada: Wetland Regions. National Atlas of Canada 5th Edition. Map.

Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. 2011. Locations by Province. Website: http://www.greyhound.ca/en/locations/locations.asp?PrinterFriendly=true. Accessed: January 2011.

Halsey, L.A. and D.H. Vitt, 1996. Alberta Wetland Inventory in: Alberta Vegetation inventory Standards Manual. Version 2.2. Alberta Environmental Protection.

Hamilton, W.N., M.C. Price and C.W. Langenburg. 1999. Geological Map of Alberta. Alberta Geological Survey, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Map No. 236. 1:100,000 map.

Harper, W.L., J.P. Elliott, I. Hatter, and H. Schwantje. 2000. Management Plan for Wood Bison in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 43 pp.

HAZCO Environmental and Decommissioning Services. 2006. HAZCO Website: http://www.hazco.com/facilities/index.htm Accessed: January 2011.

Health Canada. 2000. Canadian Guidelines for the Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM). 46 pp.

High Level 2011. Visitor Guide: Discover the Peace. Website: http://www.discoverthepeacecountry.com/htmlpages/highlevel.html. Accessed: February 2011.

Page 5-106

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Hills L. V. 2009. Palaeontological Impact Assessment of TransCanada Horn River Pipeline.

Hornbeck, G.E. and D.L.J. Moyles. 1995. Ecological aspects of woodland caribou in the Pedigree area of northwestern Alberta. Pedigree Caribou Standing Committee. Calgary, Alberta.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2010a. First Nation Detail: Beaver First Nation. Website: http://pse5- esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=445&lang=eng. Accessed: April 2011.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2010b. First Nation Detail: Duncan's First Nation. Website: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=451&lang=eng. Accessed: April 2011.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2011a. First Nation Detail: Fort Nelson First Nation. Website: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=543&lang=eng. Accessed: January 2011.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2011b. First Nation Detail: Prophet River First Nation. Website: http://pse5-esd5.ainc- inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=544&lang=eng. Accessed: February 2011.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2011c. First Nation Detail: Dene Tha First Nation. Website: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=448&lang=eng Accessed: January 2011.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2011d. First Nation Detail: Doig River First Nation. Website: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.aspx?BAND_NUMBER=548&lang=eng Accessed: March 2011.

ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. 2009. Mackenzie County Municipal Development Plan. Website:http://www.mackenziecounty.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&I temid=13. Accessed: February 2011.

ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. 2010. County of Northern Lights Municipal Development Plan. Website: http://www.mdnorth22.ab.ca/forms/New%20MDP.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

Johnson, D., L. Kershaw, A. MacKinnon and J. Pojar. 1995. Plants of the Western Boreal Forest & Aspen Parkland. Lonepine Publishing. Edmonton, Alberta.

Lindsay, J.D., S. Pawluk and W. Odynsky. 1958. Exploratory Soil Survey of Alberta Map Sheets 84-D (north half), 84-E, 84-F, and 84-G. Research Council of Alberta Preliminary Soil Survey Report 59-1. Edmonton, Alberta. 49 pp.

Lindsay, J.D., S. Pawluk and W. Odynsky. 1959. Exploratory Soil Survey of Alberta Map Sheets 84-J, 84- K, and 84-L. Research Council of Alberta Preliminary Soil Survey Report 60-1. Edmonton, Alberta. 49 pp.

MacIntyre, D. G., A.V. Okulitch, G.C. Taylor, B. Cullen, N. Massey and K. Bellefontaine. 1998. Bedrock geology, Fort Nelson, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada. 1:500,000 map.

Mackenzie County. 2009. Municipal Development Plan. Bylaw #735/09 November 10, 2009. Website: http://www.mackenziecounty.com/images/stories/documents/bylaws/12518_MackenzieMDP_091 204.PDF. Accessed: January 2011.

Mackenzie County. 2010. Mackenzie County Website: http://www.mackenziecounty.com/. Accessed: April 2011.

Page 5-107

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Mackenzie Municipal Services Agency. 2008. Clear Hills County Land Use Bylaw. Website: http://www.clearhillscounty.ab.ca/development.html. Accessed: February 2011.

Mackenzie, W.H. and J.R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a Guide to Identification. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Land Management Handbook 52.

Matsuda, B., D. Green and P. Gregory. 2006. Amphibians and Reptiles of British Columbia. Royal BC Museum Handbook. 266 pgs.

McPhail, J.D. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta. 620 pp. 1st Edition.

Meadfield Consulting Inc. and Economic Growth Solutions Inc. 2007. Northern Rockies / Fort Nelson Tourism Strategic Plan Final Report. Prepared for the Northern Rockies Regional District and the Town of Fort Nelson. Fort Nelson, BC.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series 6, February 1991. Research Branch and Forest Sciences Section. BC Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC. Website: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Srs/Srs06.htm. Accessed: April 2011.

Midwest Surveys Inc. 2011a. NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. NWML Expansion Horn River Mainline (Kyklo Creek Section). Plan Showing Right of Way. Draft. Kyklo Sheets 1.0 to 8.0. Rev.0. Fort St. John, BC.

Midwest Surveys Inc. 2011b. NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Northwest Mainline Loop NPS 48 Timberwolf Section (2012). Sketch Plan Showing Pipeline Right of Way. Timberwolf Sheets 1.0 to 13.0. Rev.0. Calgary, Alberta.

Midwest Surveys Inc. 2011c. NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Tanghe Creek Loop No.2 (NPS 48) Cranberry Section. Sketch Plan Showing Right of Way. Cranberry Sheets 1.0 to 13.0. Rev.0. Calgary, Alberta.

Mitchell, J.A., and C.C. Gates. 2002. Status of the Wood Bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report. No. 38. Edmonton, AB. 32 pp.

Moyles, D. 2010. WMU 536 Moose Aerial Surveys December 8 - 19, 2009. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Peace River – Upper Hay Management Area.

Moyles, D. and B. Johnson. 2010. Big Game Aerial Surveys in WMU 524. February 4-10, 2005. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, NW Region Wildlife Management. 4 pp.

Municipal District of Clear Hills No. 21 Council and the Mackenzie Municipal Services Agency 1999. Municipal District of Clear Hills No. 21 Municipal Development Plan. June 1999. Bylaw No. 48.

National Wetland Working Group. 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System. Edited by B.G. Warner and C.D.A. Rubec. Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo. Waterloo, Ontario.

Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852.

Natural Resources Canada. 2003. Map of permafrost in Canada. Website: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/land/permafrost. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2005a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector 1990-2020. Annex C, Natural Resources Canada, 2005.

Natural Resources Canada. 2005b. Canada’s Emission Outlook: BC + Territories 1990 -2020. BC-17, Natural Resouces Canada, 2005.

Page 5-108

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Natural Resouces Canada. 2005c. Canada’s Emission Outlook: Alberta 1990 + 2020. Alta-16, Natural Resources Canada, 2005.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007a. Map of major landslides in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/landslides/landslides. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007b. Major Volcanoes. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/volcanoes/majorvolcano. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007c. Map of major floods in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/floods/majorfloods. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007d. Forest Fire Areas. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/forest_fires/for_fir_peri. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007e. Tornadoes. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/naturalhazards1999/majort ornadoes. Accessed: February 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2007f. Major Hailstorms. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/naturalhazards1999/majorh ailstorms. Accessed: February 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009a. Map of major avalanches in Canada. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/naturalhazards1999/majora valanches. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009b. Forest Fire Hotspots 2001-2008. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/forest_fires/hotspots2007. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009c. Map of fire danger rating, 2009. Website: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/forest_fires/firedangerratin g. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2011a. Earthquakes Canada. Website: http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/simphaz-eng.php. Accessed: April 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2011b. Earthquakes Canada. National Building Code of Canada Seismic Hazard Maps. Website: http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard- alea/zoning/NBCC2005maps-eng.php. Accessed: April 2011.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer - An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm.

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

North East Invasive Plant Committee. 2010. 2010 Plan and Profile. North East Invasive Plant Committee. Fort Nelson, BC. Website: http://prrd.bc.ca/services/environmental/weed_control/documents/ NEIPCPlan_Profile_2010.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

Northern Lakes College. 2011. Information from the official website. Website: http://www.northernlakescollege.ca/. Accessed: February 2011.

Page 5-109

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Northern Lights College. 2011. Information from the official website. Website: http://www.nlc.bc.ca/campuses.fortnelson.profile.php. Accessed: February 2011.

Northern Rockies Regional Municipality. 2009. NRRM Noise Control Bylaw No. 19. 2009. Website: http://nr.fileprosite.com/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=11852. Accessed: February 2011.

Northern Rockies Regional Municipality. 2010a. Draft Northern Rockies Regional Municipality GHG Action Plan. Website: http://nr.fileprosite.com/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=38879. Accessed: February 2011.

Northern Rockies Regional Municipality. 2010b. Community Forest Tenure. Website: http://www.northernrockies.ca/EN/main/business/economic- development/Fort_Nelson_Forestry_Roundtable/Community_Forest_Tenure.html. Accessed: January 2011.

Northern Rockies Regional Municipality. 2011. Northern Rockies Regional Municipality Website: http://www.northernrockies.ca/EN/index.html. Accessed: January 2011.

Parks Canada. 2010. National Parks of Canada. Website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/index_E.asp. Accessed: April 2011.

Pawlowicz, J.G. and M.M. Fenton. 1995. Drift thickness map of Alberta. Alberta Geological Survey. 1:2,000,000 map.

Petersen, S. 1997. Status of Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 2. Edmonton, Alberta 17 Pgs.

Pettapiece, W.W. 1986. Physiographic subdivisions of Alberta. Agriculture Canada. 1:1,500,000 map

Rowe, M and R. Backmeyer. 2006. Etthithun wood bison inventory: March 2006. BC Ministry of Environment, Fort St. John, BC. 6 pp.

Russell, A. and A.M. Bauer. 1993. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Alberta. University of Calgary Press. 264 pp.

Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. Published by the Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 391 pp.

Smith, H.D. 1993. Alberta Mammals: An atlas and guide. Provincial Museum of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 238 pp.

Smith, K.B., C.E. Smith, S.F. Forest and A.J. Richard. 2007. A Field Guide to the Wetlands of the Boreal Plains Ecozone of Canada. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Western Boreal Office: Edmonton, Alberta. 98 pp. Version 1.0. June.

Smithsonian. 2011. Decline of the Rusty Blackbird. National Zoo. Migratory Bird Center. Website: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/migratorybirds/research/rusty_blackbird/decline.cfm. Accessed: February 2011.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2011. NGTL Northwest Mainline Expansion: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Report. Calgary.

STARS. 2011. STARS Air Ambulance. Website: http://www.stars.ca/bins/index.asp. Accessed: April 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2007a. Fort Nelson First Nation, Alberta (table). 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 92-594-XWE. Ottawa. Released January 15, 2008. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 594/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=BAND&Code1=59630147&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=C ount&SearchText=Fort%20Nelson&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: January 2011.

Page 5-110

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Statistics Canada. 2007b. Prophet River First Nation, Alberta (table). 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 92-594-XWE. Ottawa. Released January 15, 2008. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 594/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=BAND&Code1=59630382&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=C ount&SearchText=prophet%20river&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: March 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2007c. Dene Tha’, Alberta (table). 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 92-594-XWE. Ottawa. Released January 15, 2008. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 594/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=BAND&Code1=48630114&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=C ount&SearchText=tha&SearchType=Contains&SearchPR=48&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: March 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2007d. Beaver First Nation, Alberta (table). 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 92-594-XWE. Ottawa. Released January 15, 2008. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 594/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=BAND&Code1=48630034&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=C ount&SearchText=beaver&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: April 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2007e. Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, Alberta (table). 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 92-594-XWE. Ottawa. Released January 15, 2008. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 594/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=BAND&Code1=48480162&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=C ount&SearchText=paddle%20prairie&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: March 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2007f. Doig River 206, British Columbia (Code5955804) (table). 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007.http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed: April 2011).

Statistics Canada. 2007g. Duncan's First Nation, Alberta (table). 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 92-594-XWE. Ottawa. Released January 15, 2008. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 594/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=BAND&Code1=48630122&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=C ount&SearchText=Duncan's&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: March 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2010a. 2006 Community Profile - Northern Rockies Regional District. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=5959&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&Se archText=northern%20rockies&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: January 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2010b. 2006 Community Profile - Fort Nelson. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5959005&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=fort%20nelson&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom= Accessed: January 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2010c. 2006 Community Profile - Mackenzie County. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4817095&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=mackenzie&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom= Accessed: March 2011.

Page 5-111

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Statistics Canada. 2010d. 2006 Community Profile - M.D. of Northern Lights. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4817076&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=northern%20lights&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: March 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2010e. 2006 Community Profile - Rainbow Lake. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4817097&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=Rainbow%20Lake&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: April 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2010f. 2006 Community Profile - High Level. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census- recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4817093&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=High%20Level&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: April 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2010g. 2006 Community Profile - Clear Hills County. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4817062&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=Clear%20Hills&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: April 2011.

Statistics Canada. 2010h. 2006 Community Profile - Manning. Website: http://www12.statcan.ca/census- recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4817078&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Cou nt&SearchText=Manning&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed: April 2011.

Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. The Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company. 279 pp.

Strong W.L. and C. Gates 2009. Wood bison population recovery and forage availability in northwestern Canada. J Environ Manage. 2009 Jan; 90 (1):434-40.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2010a. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment for the Nova GAS Transmission Ltd. Horn River Mainline Project.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2010b. Traditional Land Use Report for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Horn River Mainline Project Prophet River First Nation.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2010c. Consolidated Traditional Land Use Study for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Horn River Mainline Project for the Communities of: Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2010d. Update Report for the Traditional Land Use Study for the Proposed NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Horn River Mainline Project for the Communities of: Fort Nelson First Nation, Prophet River First Nation, Dene Tha' First Nation.

Timoney, K. 2001. Types and attributes of old-growth forests in Alberta, Canada. Natural Areas Journal. Volume 21, pp 282 – 300. Cited within Schneider, R. 2002. Alternative Futures: Alberta’s Boreal Forest at the Crossroads. The Alberta Centre for Boreal Research and The Federation of Alberta Naturalists. Edmonton, Alberta.

Tourism British Columbia. 2005. Northern Rockies – Alaska Highway Visitor Research Project. Website: http://www.tti.gov.bc.ca/research/ResearchByRegion/pdf/northern_bc/Northern_Rockies_- _Alaska_Highway_Visitor_Research_Project_Executive_Summary.sflb.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

Page 5-112

NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Northwest Mainline Expansion April 2011 / 7212/7238

Tourism Northern Rockies. 2010. Tourism Northern Rockies Travel Guide. Website: http://www.northernrockies.ca/assets/Visitors/Travel~Guide/NRRM_Travel_Guide.pdf. Accessed: February 2011.

Town of Manning. 2010. Town of Manning Website: http://www.manning.govoffice.com/. Accessed: April 2011.

Town of Rainbow Lake. 2009. Town of Rainbow Lake Website: http://www.rainbowlake.ca/index.html. Accessed: April 2011.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2010. Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory. Website: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fcsi-rscf/home-accueil.aspx?Language=EN&sid=wu323182232660. Accessed: December 2010.

United States Geological Survey. 2009. Earthquake Hazards Program. Website: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?termID=32. Accessed: April 2011.

Valentine, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Lavkulich. 1978. The Soil Landscapes of British Columbia. 197 pp.

Vector Geomatics. 2010. Northeastern British Columbia Oil & Gas Atlas, 2010 Edition. Vector Geomatics, Fort St. John, BC.

Wheeler, J.O., P.F. Hoffman, K.D. Card, A. Davidson, B.V. Sanford, A.V. Okulitch and W.R Roest. 1996. Geological map of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, "A" Series Map, 1860A.

Wright, J.D. and J. Ernst. 2004. Effects of mid-winter snow depth on stand selection by wolverines Gulo gulo luscus, in the boreal forest. Canadian Field-Naturalist 118(1): 56-60.

Page 5-113