TABLE 4.1 PROJECT SUMMARY OF WATERSHED BOUNDARIES, NAMED WATERCOURSES, MUNICIPALITIES, CROSSING NUMBERS AND RK POSTS

Transcription

1 4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW The background information presented in the following sections forms the basis for the field studies and several aspects of the determination of fish and fish habitat sensitivity (as described in Section 3.7). 4.1 General Information Geography, climate, land uses and fisheries resources vary considerably throughout the Edmonton to Hinton Segment. A general overview of fish species of management concern and RAPs relative to the Project area are also presented in Sections and Details about the environmental setting, background information and existing land uses, proposed crossings and corresponding fish distributions for each watershed are presented in Section 4.2. Section 4.3 provides details concerning the information and distribution of selected indicator fish species and Section 4.4 provides details concerning other fish species of management concern occurring with the watersheds defined for the Edmonton to Hinton Segment s Fish and Fish Habitat RSA Background The Edmonton to Hinton Segment is located on both Crown and privately-owned lands (i.e., Green and White Areas, respectively) administered by the AESRD Lands Division and encompasses the Edmonton Capital Region. The proposed pipeline corridor lies within AESRD s Fish Management Zone 2, Parkland Prairies (PP) Watershed Unit PP2 and Zone 1, Eastern Slopes (ES) Watershed Unit ES3 (ASRD 2009). The proposed pipeline corridor crosses the Athabasca Ranch Public Land Use Zone, administered by the Forests Act, Forest Recreational Regulation (AESRD 2012d). From east to west, the Edmonton to Hinton Segment crosses Strathcona, Parkland and Yellowhead counties (Table 4.1). TABLE 4.1 PROJECT SUMMARY OF WATERSHED BOUNDARIES, NAMED WATERCOURSES, MUNICIPALITIES, CROSSING NUMBERS AND RK POSTS Pipeline Segment Edmonton to Hinton (RK 0.0 to RK 339.4) Watershed Lower North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Sturgeon River Upper North Saskatchewan River Pembina River Lower McLeod River Upper McLeod River Athabasca River Named Watercourses Municipality Crossing Numbers Goldbar and Mill creeks Blackmud and Whitemud creeks and North Saskatchewan River Dog, Atim and Kilini creeks Strathcona AB-1 to AB to 23.1 Parkland AB-12 to AB to 51.5 AB-16 to AB-29 AB-55 to AB-62 RK of Proposed Crossings within the Watershed 51.5 to to to n/a AB-30 to AB to to Zeb-igler, Little Brule, Brule creeks and Lobstick and Pembina rivers Carrot, January, Wolf and Bench creeks and McLeod River Little Sundance and Sundance creeks Rooster, Ponoka, Roudcroft, Sandstone, Hunt, Trail, Hardisty and Maskuta creeks Yellowhead AB-63 to AB to AB-119 to AB to AB-137 to AB to AB-147 to AB to Page 4-1

2 The Lower and Middle North Saskatchewan River watersheds lie within Fish Management Zone 2, Parkland Prairies Watershed Unit PP2, whereas the Upper North Saskatchewan, Pembina, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca River watersheds lie within Fish Management Zone 1, ES Watershed Unit ES3. The Sturgeon River Watershed falls in both of the aforementioned Fish Management zones. The Water Survey of Canada maintains several hydrological stations year-round on some of the watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor. A summary of historic hydrometric data from the hydrological stations near the proposed pipeline corridor is provided in Table 4.2. All of the hydrographs considered for the Edmonton to Hinton Segment show similar seasonal flow patterns which indicate annual high flow events coincide with snowmelt. Flows are lowest during the winter months from October through March and discharge begins to increase during the spring in April. Peak flows vary depending on the size and location of the watercourse, but the North Saskatchewan River reaches peak flow in July, while the smaller rivers and creeks reach peak flow from April to June. Flows begin to decline in July and continue to decline until October, just prior to freeze-up. Graphical representation of discharge data from these monitoring stations is provided in Appendix B. TABLE 4.2 SUMMARY OF STREAMFLOWS FROM HYDROLOGICAL STATIONS NEAR THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR Watercourse Name Blackmud Creek Whitemud Creek North Saskatchewan Atim Creek Pembina River Wolf Creek McLeod River Sources: Station Name, Station Number Blackmud Creek near Ellerslie 05DF003 Whitemud Creek near Ellerslie 05DF006 North Saskatchewan River at Edmonton 05DF001 Atim Creek at Century Road 05EA012 Pembina River near Entwistle 07BB002 Wolf Creek at Highway 16A 07AG003 McLeod River near Rosevear 07AG007 Environment Canada 2013a-g Years Station Data Has Been Available Approximate Location of Station Relative to the Proposed Pipeline Corridor 1977 to km upstream of RK to km upstream of RK to km downstream of RK to km downstream of RK to km downstream of RK to m downstream of RK to km downstream of RK Month and Mean Monthly Discharge (m³/s) During Lowest Flow Period October 0.09 m 3 /s October 0.03 m 3 /s February 68.7 m 3 /s September 0.09 m 3 /s February 2.33 m 3 /s February 0.52 m 3 /s February 4.1 m 3 /s Month and Mean Monthly Discharge (m³/s) During Highest Flow Period April 2.17 m 3 /s April 2.28 m 3 /s July m 3 /s April 0.58 m 3 /s May 49.6 m 3 /s July 9.2 m 3 /s June m 3 /s Species of Management Concern No SARA-listed species (i.e., Schedule 1) occur within the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA of the Edmonton to Hinton Segment. However, two fish species listed by COSEWIC, lake sturgeon and bull trout, are known to occur in the North Saskatchewan River Basin in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline corridor (COSEWIC 2013). Since 2006, the Saskatchewan River populations of lake sturgeon have been listed by COSEWIC as Endangered. The Endangered listing indicates that this population is facing imminent extirpation or extinction (COSEWIC 2013). The Saskatchewan River populations of bull trout have recently been listed as Threatened by COSEWIC, while Western Arctic drainage populations (which includes the Athabasca River Basin) have been listed as Special Concern (COSEWIC 2013). Provincially, the general status of lake sturgeon has been recently downgraded from At Risk to its current listing of Undetermined (ASRD 2010a); however, Alberta s ESCC has designated lake sturgeon as a Threatened species (AESRD 2012b). Provincially, Arctic grayling and bull trout have a general status listing as a Sensitive species (ASRD 2010a), but according to the ESCC are Species of Special Concern Page 4-2

3 (AESRD 2012b). Sauger and northern redbelly dace are also listed (general status) as Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2010a) and are known to occur in the North Saskatchewan and Athabasca River basins near the proposed pipeline corridor. In addition, rainbow trout (Athabasca River population) and spoonhead sculpin are listed (general status) as At Risk and May be at Risk in Alberta, respectively. Athabasca rainbow trout are also listed by the ESCC as In Process (AESRD 2012b). Table 3.1 provides all of the definitions of the general status listings as identified in the general status of Alberta Wild Species. Table 4.3 presents the status of all the species of management concern previously documented within watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor. In addition to listed fish species (as defined in Section 3.2.6), other species of management concern are also documented within the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA. Several species with secure designations are documented at proposed crossings within the pipeline corridor including: brook trout; brown trout; rainbow trout (introduced populations); cutthroat trout; mountain whitefish; yellow perch; mooneye: and goldeye. TABLE 4.3 SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species 1 SPORTFISH bull trout (North and South Saskatchewan River populations)* brook trout Scientific Name Salvelinus confluentus Salvelinus fontinalis Project Watershed in Which They are Known to Occur Middle North Saskatchewan, Pembina, Lower McLeod and Athabasca rivers Middle North Saskatchewan, Pembina, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca rivers brown trout Salmo trutta Pembina and Middle North Saskatchewan rivers rainbow trout (introduced populations) Athabasca rainbow trout* cutthroat trout (introduced populations) Oncorhynchus mykiss Oncorhynchus mykiss Oncorhynchus clarkii Middle North Saskatchewan, Pembina, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca rivers Middle North Saskatchewan, Pembina, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca rivers Middle North Saskatchewan River Arctic grayling* Thymallus arcticus Pembina and Lower and Upper McLeod rivers lake sturgeon (Alberta population) sauger mountain whitefish Acipenser fulvescens Sander canadensis Prosopium williamsoni Middle North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan, Pembina, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca rivers Provincially- Listed According to the Alberta General Status 2 Provincially-Listed Under the Wildlife Act and Wildlife Regulation or as designated by the ESCC 3 COSEWIC-Listed Species 4 Sensitive Species of Special Concern Threatened/Special Concern Exotic/Alien Not Listed Not Listed Exotic/Alien Not Listed Not Listed Secure Not Listed Not Listed At Risk In Process Not Listed Secure Not Listed Not Listed Sensitive Species of Special Concern Not Listed Undetermined Threatened Endangered Sensitive Not Listed Not Listed Secure Not Listed Not Listed Page 4-3

4 Species 1 Scientific Name Project Watershed in Which They are Known to Occur burbot* Lota lota Middle North Saskatchewan Pembina, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca rivers northern pike* Esox lucius Middle North Saskatchewan, Sturgeon, Pembina, Lower McLeod and Athabasca rivers walleye* Sander vitreus Pembina and Lower McLeod rivers yellow perch Perca flavescens Middle North Saskatchewan, Pembina and Lower McLeod rivers goldeye Hiodon alosoides Middle North Saskatchewan, Pembina and Lower McLeod rivers mooneye Hiodon tergisus Middle North Saskatchewan River NON-SPORTFISH northern redbelly dace Phoximus eos Middle North Saskatchewan and Lower McLeod rivers spoonhead sculpin Cottus ricei Middle North Saskatchewan, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca rivers TABLE 4.3 Cont'd Provincially- Listed According to the Alberta General Status 2 Provincially-Listed Under the Wildlife Act and Wildlife Regulation or as designated by the ESCC 3 COSEWIC-Listed Species 4 Secure Not Listed Not Listed Secure Not Listed Not Listed Secure Not Listed Not Listed Secure Not Listed Not Listed Secure Not Listed Not Listed Secure Not Listed Not Listed Sensitive Not Listed Not Listed May Be At Risk Not Listed Not Listed Notes: 1 List compiled from FWMIS 2013, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Joynt and Sullivan ASRD 2010a 3 AESRD 2012b 4 COSEWIC 2013 * Selected as an indicator species. It should also be noted that bull trout in the Athabasca River sub-basin may be contained within the Western Arctic population geographic ranging, although boundaries between the Western Arctic and North and South Saskatchewan River populations is not currently published Restricted Activity Periods According to the COP for Watercourse Crossings, a RAP is defined as: the time period for which fish migration, spawning, egg incubation and fry emergence are likely to occur within a water body. (GOA 2013b). As a result, the RAPs in Alberta have been developed to protect juveniles, fry, eggs and their habitats from harm through avoidance or mitigation of potentially detrimental effects to fish and fish habitat (GOA 2013a). RAPs are a period of time for which construction and proposed works should not occur instream, unless otherwise assessed by a QAES. RAPs designed to protect specific species can vary with geographical location. Table 4.4 shows the RAPs established for sportfish in the Fish Management Zones encountered by the proposed pipeline corridor in the Edmonton to Hinton Segment, PP2 and ES3 (ASRD 2009). These zone-specific periods (Table 4.4) form the basis of COP maps and enforced RAP. Page 4-4

5 TABLE 4.4 ZONE-SPECIFIC RESTRICTED ACTIVITY PERIOD TIMING FOR FISH SPECIES IN THE FISH MANAGEMENT ZONES ENCOUNTERED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Parkland Prairies (PP2) Eastern Slopes (ES3) Arctic grayling* Not applicable April 16 to June 30 cutthroat trout Not applicable May 16 to August 15 brook trout Not applicable - October 1 to April 15 brown trout October 1 to April 15 October 1 to April 15 bull trout* Not applicable September 1 to April 30 lake trout Not applicable September 16 to April 15 lake whitefish October 1 to May 31 October 1 to April 30 mountain whitefish September 1 to April 30 September 16 to April 15 rainbow trout* Not applicable May 1 to July 15 burbot* January 1 to April 30 January 1 to April 30 goldeye April 16 to June 30 Not applicable - lake sturgeon* April 16 to July 31 Not applicable northern pike* April 16 to June 30 April 16 to June 30 sauger April 16 to June 30 Not applicable walleye* April 16 to June 30 April 16 to June 30 yellow perch April 16 to June 30 April 16 to June 30 Note: * Selected as an indicator species. Proposed crossings of fish habitat, regardless of fish-bearing status, were confirmed for appropriate Class and associated RAP as defined by the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (i.e., for vehicle and equipment crossings) (GOA 2013b). Provincial classifications and corresponding RAPs for the fish habitat crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor were determined according to the COP Management Area Maps for Stony Plain, Edson and St. Paul (AENV 2006a,b, AESRD 2013a). It is important to note that while there is no applicable classification or RAP for NCDs under Alberta s COPs, if species of management concern are encountered or suitable habitat exists in a NCD, a species-specific RAP may be applicable, at the discretion of the QAES. Final determination of crossing classification and RAP was made based on observations made by the QAES during field assessments. A Least Risk Biological Window was assigned to fish-bearing sites, following habitat assessments completed during the FFP or where suitable existing information exists. The window, designed to assist in construction planning jointly in both Alberta and BC (which does not use RAPs), was determined by the QAES as a preferred period of time for construction, with consideration for the associated RAP and habitat potential identified within each Fish and Fish Habitat LSA. In instances where the RAP was deemed appropriate by the QAES, the least risk biological window represented the time period outside the RAP. In other instances, the least risk biological window represented the recommended period in which construction could occur, regardless of the RAP, without potentially affecting the productive capacity of the watercourse (pending successful implementation of mitigation measures). The least risk biological window at each crossing is provided in Appendices C and D. 4.2 Environmental Setting and Fish Species Distribution Edmonton to Hinton Segment The proposed pipeline corridor within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment originates at the existing (Trans Mountain) Edmonton Terminal in Sherwood Park. From the Edmonton Terminal, the proposed pipeline corridor extends south then west along the Edmonton Transit Utility Corridor before diverging to the west towards the Town of Stony Plain. From the Stony Plain area, the proposed pipeline corridor generally parallels Highway 16 for much of the remaining segment, occasionally alternating between the north and south approaches of the highway. The Edmonton to Hinton Segment is approximately 340 km long, with approximately 247 km of the proposed pipeline corridor occurring in the White Area and 93 km occurring Page 4-5

6 in Alberta s Green Area. Although Proiect components other than the proposed pipeline corridor are proposed within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment (Section 1.1), none of these features encroach upon fish habitat. Within the North Saskatchewan River Basin and its respective four watersheds (Lower, Middle, Upper North Saskatchewan and Sturgeon River watersheds), the named watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor include Goldbar, Mill, Whitemud, Blackmud, Dog, Atim and Kilini creeks and the North Saskatchewan River. Flow in the North Saskatchewan River, upstream from the Project, are regulated by two large hydroelectric dams. The Bighorn Dam is located on the North Saskatchewan River at Lake Abraham in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, while the Brazeau Dam is located on the Brazeau Reservoir near the Brazeau River s confluence with the North Saskatchewan River. These dams generally increase winter flows and decrease summer flows (Partners for the Saskatchewan River Basin 2009). The Bighorn and Brazeau dams are approximately 330 km and 190 km, respectively, upstream from the proposed pipeline corridor. Indicator species previously documented in the North Saskatchewan River Basin are bull trout, burbot, walleye and northern pike. Other species of management concern previously documented in the North Saskatchewan River Basin include: lake sturgeon; brown trout; brook trout; cutthroat trout; rainbow trout; mountain whitefish; yellow perch; mooneye; goldeye; sauger; spoonhead sculpin; and northern redbelly dace. In the North Saskatchewan River Basin, brown, rainbow, brook and cutthroat trout are all introduced populations. Within the Athabasca River Basin and its respective watersheds (Pembina, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca River watersheds), the named watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor include the Pembina, McLeod and Lobstick rivers and Zeb-igler, Carrot, January, Brule, Little Brule, Wolf, Bench, Carrot, Rooster, Ponoka, Roundcroft, Sandstone, Hunt, Trail, Hardisty, Maskuta, Sundance and Little Sundance creeks. All indicator species have been previously documented in the Athabasca River Basin. Other species of management concern that have been previously documented in the Athabasca River Basin include: brown trout; brook trout; rainbow trout; mountain whitefish; yellow perch; goldeye; spoonhead sculpin; and northern redbelly dace. Athabasca rainbow trout occur in the Athabasca River Basin, along with introduced populations of rainbow, brown and brook trout Background Information and Existing Land Uses Communities located along, and in proximity to, the Edmonton to Hinton Segment include the City of Edmonton, the City of Spruce Grove, the Town of Stony Plain, the Village of Wabamun, the Hamlet of Entwistle, the Hamlet of Evansburg, the Hamlet of Wildwood, the Town of Edson and the Town of Hinton. The Edmonton to Hinton Segment spans areas ranging from very low to very high concentrations of permanent inhabitants. Rural areas along the proposed pipeline corridor transition from predominantly privately-owned, agricultural land to the east to forested, Crown land to the west. The proposed pipeline corridor is located in areas where industrial, commercial, oil and gas, agricultural, recreational, trapping, guiding and rural and urban residential land uses occur. The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Parkland, Boreal Forest and Foothills Regions of Alberta s Natural Regions, respectively, from east to west (Natural Regions Committee [NRC] 2006). Within the Parkland Region, the segment crosses the Central Parkland Natural Subregion. This subregion occupies over 50,000 km² of land and most of these lands are under cultivation. Undulating till plains and hummocky uplands dominate the landscape. Plains rough fescue dominates the vegetation communities in the southern and eastern areas of the subregion with small aspen dominated communities occurring in moister habitats. The northern and western parts of the subregion are composed of aspen forest with grasslands restricted to the driest areas (NRC 2006). The Lower North Saskatchewan River Watershed and most of the Middle North Saskatchewan Sturgeon River watersheds are located in the Central Parkland Natural Subregion. Within the Boreal Forest Natural Region, the segment crosses the Central and Dry Mixedwood Subregions. The Dry Mixedwood is the most southern and the warmest of the Boreal Forest Subregions in Alberta and is characterized by aspen forests with understory. The Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion is the largest natural subregion in Alberta and is characterized by upland forests, including a mosaic of aspen, mixedwood and white spruce on level to gently undulating plains. Common understory species include: low-bush cranberry; prickly rose; green alder; Canada buffaloberry; hairy wild rye; Page 4-6

7 bunchberry; wild sarsaparilla; and dewberry. Wetlands are often extensive and are dominated by black spruce (Picea mariana) fens and bogs (NRC 2006). The Pembina and Upper North Saskatchewan River watersheds and the western portion of the Middle North Saskatchewan and Sturgeon River watersheds are located throughout the Boreal Forest Natural Region. Within the Foothills Natural Region, the segment crosses the Upper and Lower Foothills Subregions. These subregions are characterized by closed, conifer dominated forests occurring on rolling to steeply sloping terrain. Forests in this subregion are often dominated by lodgepole pine with black spruce and white spruce as minor components. Deciduous and mixedwood forests occur on southerly and westerly slopes often at lower elevations. Common understory species on mesic sites include: green alder; low-bush cranberry; prickly rose; wild sarsaparilla; dewberry; fireweed; and bluejoint. The Upper Foothills Natural Subregion has a shorter, cooler growing season than the adjacent Lower Foothills Natural Subregion. As a result, the communities in this subregion are generally less diverse (NRC 2006). The Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca River watersheds are located in the Foothills Natural Region. One of the policy objectives in the Lake Wabamun Management Plan (Marshall Macklin Monaghan Western Limited 1985) was to improve, develop and control the sport and commercial fishery at Lake Wabamun as the importance of it as a valuable fisheries resource was recognized at the policy level. In Alberta, a provincial park is managed and designated under the Provincial Parks Act. Selection of a pipeline corridor adjacent to a provincial park is based on the primary routing criteria objective which is to parallel the existing Trans Mountain pipeline corridor to the extent practical within Alberta and BC. Five Environmentally Significant Areas are encountered by the proposed pipeline corridor. ATPR defines Environmentally Significant Areas as being important to the long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water or other natural processes at multiple spatial scales and/or areas that contain rare or unique elements or that include elements that may require special management consideration due to their conservation needs (ATPR 2009). However, ATPR also states that Environmentally Significant Areas do not represent government policy and do not necessarily require legal protection. They are, instead, intended to be an information tool to help inform land use planning and policy at local, regional and provincial scales (ATPR 2009). Of the five Environmentally Significant Areas that are crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor, four are provincially-listed and one is nationally-listed. Environmentally Significant Area 690 is the largest of the five Environmentally Significant Areas, fulfills six of the seven criterion and has the highest number of species of management concern. Table 4.5 displays the characteristics of each of the five Environmentally Significant Areas crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor. No designated or nominated Canadian Heritage Rivers are crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor along the Edmonton to Hinton Segment (Canadian Heritage Rivers System 2011). The proposed pipeline corridor does not cross any of the 13 designated irrigation districts in Alberta (AARD 2011). No Indian Reservations (IRs) are crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment; however, Wabamun Lake IR and Stony Plain IR are located directly south of the proposed pipeline corridor. Page 4-7

8 Environmentally Significant Area No. RK Range Significance Rating TABLE 4.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIVE ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS ENCOUNTERED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR Natural Region; Natural Subrergion Watershed 70 RK to RK Provincial Foothills; Lower Foothills Upper McLeod River 99 RK 297 to RK RK to RK RK to RK RK to RK RK to RK Provincial Foothills, Boreal and Rocky Mountain; Lower Foothills, Central Mixedwood and Montane 441 RK to RK Provincial Boreal; Dry Mixedwood and Central Mixedwood 442 RK to RK RK to RK RK to RK Provincial Boreal; Dry Mixedwood Upper North Saskatchewan and Sturgeon rivers 690 RK 32.4 to RK 35.0 National Boreal, Foothills and Parkland; Dry Mixedwood, Lower Foothills, Central Parkland, Central Mixedwood and Upper Foothills Source: ATPR 2009 Notes: RK RK along the proposed pipeline corridor. * Countries encountered by the proposed pipeline corridor. Area (km 2 ) Criterion 1: Contains Three Elements of Conservation Concern Criterion 2: Contains Rare or Unique Landforms Criterion 3: Contains Habitat for Focal Species Criterion 4: Contains Important Wildlife Habitat Criterion 5: Contains Riparian Areas Headwater Streams Intact Riparian Areas Areas Along the Six Major Rivers Criterion 6: Contains Large Natural Areas Criterion 7: Contains Sites of Recognized Importance Municipalities 15.8 Yellowhead County * Athabasca River Woodlands, Yellowhead * and Lac Ste. Anne counties, Municipal District of Greenview No. 16 and County of Barrhead No. 11 Sturgeon River 96.1 Parkland * and Lac Ste. Anne counties Middle North Saskatchewan River Parkland* County 1,397.3 Clearwater, Parkland*, Brazeau, Smoky Lake, Leduc, Lamont, Sturgeon, Strathcona * and Yellowhead * counties and County of St. Paul No.19, Two Hills No. 21, Vermilion River No. 24 and Thorchild No. 7 Page 4-8

9 No national parks or World Heritage Sites are encountered by the proposed pipeline corridor. Similarly, no provincial parks or provincially designated conservation or recreational areas are crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor in the Edmonton to Hinton Segment, although its route is located adjacent to Wabamun Lake, Obed, Pembina River, William A. Switzer and Strathcona Science provincial parks, and Yates Natural Area. Given the relative proximity of the proposed pipeline corridor to Wabamun Lake, and Pembina River provincial parks, it is realistic to expect the LSA of some watercourses to extend within the boundaries of these provincial parks. The City of Edmonton has 460 parks (City of Edmonton 2013). No neighbourhood and/or river valley parks are encountered by the proposed pipeline corridor; however, several parks occur within the vicinity (< 1 km) of the proposed pipeline corridor, situated either directly north or south. Table 4.6 highlights the neighbourhoods and corresponding parks that are in the adjacent surroundings of the proposed pipeline corridor. Most of the parks within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline corridor are located in the North Saskatchewan River Valley, a 48 km stretch of urbanized river valley that contains 22 major parks and is known as the Ribbon of Green (City of Edmonton 2013). River Valley Terwillegar parks and Whitemud Creek Nature Ravine are 2 of the 22 major parks in the North Saskatchewan River Valley. The crossing locations of Whitemud Creek and the North Saskatchewan River are approximately 1.7 km and 0.8 km, respectively, southwest from River Valley Terwillegar parks and the Whitemud Creek Nature Ravine. TABLE 4.6 NAMED NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS IN THE CITY OF EDMONTON NEAR THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR Neighbourhood Granville Glastonbury The Hamptons Rural West River Valley Terwillegar Haddow South Terwillegar Mactaggart Whitemud Creek Ravine Twin Brooks MacEwan Menisa Source: City of Edmonton 2013 Park Name Granville Parks Glastonbury, John Patrick Gillese and Guinevere Parks Hampton Park Rural West Park River Valley Terwillegar Haddow Park Terwillegar South Park Mactaggart Park Whitemud Creek Nature Ravine MacEwan Park and MacEwan Menisa Park Fish Species Distribution Lower North Saskatchewan River Watershed The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Lower North Saskatchewan River Watershed from RK 0.0 to RK The Lower North Saskatchewan River water drainage area is approximately 4,400 km 2 (Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration-Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada [PFRA-AAFC] 2008) and is the watershed for Goldbar and Mill creeks. Goldbar and Mill creeks flow northwest for approximately 8 km and 15 km, respectively, from the proposed pipeline corridor to the confluence with the North Saskatchewan River. No indicator species have been previously documented in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment within the Lower North Saskatchewan River Watershed. Goldbar and Mill creeks have been documented to contain other species including brook stickleback, fathead minnow, lake chub and spottail shiner (FWMIS 2013) (Table 4.7). No other species of management concern have been previously documented in these watercourses. Page 4-9

10 TABLE 4.7 FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE LOWER NORTH SASKATCHEWAN WATERSHED Source: FWMIS 2013 Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented AB-2 Goldbar Creek Brook stickleback, fathead minnow, lake chub and spottail shiner. AB-7 Mill Creek Brook stickleback and fathead minnow. Middle North Saskatchewan River Watershed The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Middle North Saskatchewan River Watershed from RK 23.1 to RK The Middle North Saskatchewan River drainage area is approximately 3,100 km 2 (PFRA-AAFC 2008) and is the watershed for Blackmud and Whitemud creeks and the North Saskatchewan River. The North Saskatchewan River originates from the Columbia Icefields in Banff National Park in Western Alberta at an elevation of approximately 2,200 m above sea level (asl) and flows for approximately 1,400 km to an elevation of approximately 400 m (asl) at its confluence with the South Saskatchewan River in central Saskatchewan. The North Saskatchewan River generally flows northeast across Alberta passing through the City of Edmonton before it crosses the provincial border into Saskatchewan. Blackmud Creek drains into Whitemud Creek approximately 3.5 km downstream from the crossing location and Whitemud Creek drains into the North Saskatchewan River approximately 10 km downstream from the crossing location. Indicator species found in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment within the Middle North Saskatchewan River Watershed include: bull trout; burbot; northern pike; and walleye (Table 4.8). Historically, bull trout were common in the North Saskatchewan River within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline corridor in the Parkland and Grassland Natural Regions. However, the species only currently exists further upstream in the Rocky Mountain and Foothills Natural Regions of the North Saskatchewan River, outside the Project area (ASRD and ACA 2009b). Prior to the 1930's, populations of bull trout were common to occur in the North Saskatchewan River near Edmonton, but now only occur upstream from Drayton Valley (Milholland 2005, Nelson and Paetz 1992). Northern pike and walleye typically dominate the lower reach of the North Saskatchewan River, below the Brazeau River drainage where warmer water temperatures occur. Of the 177 fish-bearing lakes in Alberta, 8 lakes are known to contain walleye and 75% of the lakes (89% by total area) are located near Edmonton (Berry 1995). Other fish species of management concern previously documented in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment within the Middle North Saskatchewan River Watershed include: lake sturgeon; lake trout; brook trout; brown trout; cutthroat trout; goldeye; mountain whitefish; sauger; spoonhead sculpin; and northern redbelly dace (Table 4.8). However, these documented occurrences result from the North Saskatchewan River only. In Alberta, lake sturgeon only reside in the North Saskatchewan and South Saskatchewan River drainages (McLeod et al. 1999). In the North Saskatchewan River drainage, lake sturgeon are only found in the North Saskatchewan River and its tributary, the Brazeau River (McLeod et al. 1999). Historically it was considered that both populations were a part of the same larger population, but the construction of hydroelectric dams has fragmented lake sturgeon into several populations (McLeod et al. 1999). Based on mark recapture methods, there were an estimated 1353 ± 423 fish in the reach from the City of Edmonton to the Saskatchewan border (McLeod et al. 1999) in the 1990 s. More recent information suggests that the Alberta population of lake sturgeon (occurring between the areas of Drayton Valley and the Saskatchewan border) numbers approximately 6,300 (Watkins pers. comm.). Although juvenile lake sturgeon have been encountered in the vicinity of the proposed crossing location of the North Saskatchewan River, there is no evidence or reported behaviour that would suggest the species use the area of the proposed crossing for more than migration (Watkins pers. comm.). Page 4-10

11 Information related to the use of Blackmud and Whitemud creeks by coarse and cyprinid species has been requested of AESRD (Table 2.2). At this time, however, this information is pending. TABLE 4.8 FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE MIDDLE NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER WATERSHED Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented AB-12 Blackmud Creek Brook stickleback, fathead minnow, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker and white sucker. AB-13 Whitemud Creek Northern pike*, burbot*, mountain sucker, brook stickleback, fathead minnow, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, pearl dace, river shiner, spottail shiner, trout-perch and white sucker. AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Brook trout, brown trout, bull trout*, burbot*, cutthroat trout, cutthroat troutxrainbow trout, rainbow trout, goldeye, lake sturgeon, lake trout, mountain sucker, mountain whitefish, northern pike*, northern red belly dace, sauger, walleye*, yellow perch, brook stickleback, emerald shiner, fathead minnow, finescale dace, flathead chub, Iowa darter, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, mooneye, mountain sucker, pearl dace, quillback, river shiner, shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse, slimy sculpin, spoonhead sculpin, spottail shiner, trout-perch and white sucker. AB-15 Unnamed tributary to Brook stickleback and fathead minnow. the North Saskatchewan River at RK 36.9 AB-16 Unnamed Wetland at Brook stickleback and fathead minnow. RK 40.5 AB-17 Unnamed NCD at RK 41.7 Brook stickleback and fathead minnow. Source: FWMIS 2013 Note: * Indicator species. Sturgeon River Watershed The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Sturgeon River Watershed from RK 51.5 to RK 75.2, RK 78.7 to RK 84.0 and RK to RK The Sturgeon River drainage area is approximately 3,300 km 2 (PFRA-AAFC 2008). Dog, Atim and Kilini creeks occur in this watershed. The Sturgeon River flows for approximately 260 km from Isle Lake, approximately 90 km west of Edmonton, to Fort Saskatchewan where it drains into the North Saskatchewan River. Atim Creek is a direct tributary to the Sturgeon River. Dog Creek is a tributary to Atim Creek, and Atim Creek is the primary inflow to Big Lake. Killini Creek is the primary outflow from Johnnys Lake where it flows northeast and drains into Matchayaw Lake. Crossings of Dog and Atim creeks are located directly east of the Town of Stony Plain adjacent to Highway 16. The Sturgeon River is not crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor. The only indicator species found in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment within the Sturgeon River Watershed is northern pike (Table 4.9). However, numerous lakes are found in the upper region of the Sturgeon River Watershed that are not directly crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor, but are known to support northern pike, walleye and burbot. Burbot and walleye prefer the bottom of cold lakes and rivers and are commonly found in Lac St. Anne and Isle Lake, two lakes northwest of Edmonton that drain into the Sturgeon River (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Other than northern pike, no other species of management concern have been previously documented in watercourses within the Sturgeon River Watershed that are crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment. Page 4-11

12 TABLE 4.9 FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE STURGEON RIVER WATERSHED Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented AB-18 Dog Creek Brook stickleback and fathead minnow. AB-19 Atim Creek Brook stickleback, fathead minnow, lake chub and white sucker. AB-20 and AB-21 Unnamed tributaries to Brook stickleback, fathead minnow, lake chub and white sucker. Atim Creek at RK 64.2 and RK 65.5 AB-25 Kilini Creek Brook stickleback, flathead chub, Iowa darter, northern pike* and white sucker. AB-60 Unnamed tributary to Isle Lake at RK Brook stickleback and fathead minnow. Source: FWMIS 2013 Note: * Indicator species. Upper North Saskatchewan River Watershed The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Upper North Saskatchewan River Watershed from RK 75.2 to RK 78.7 and RK 84.0 to RK The Upper North Saskatchewan River drainage area is approximately 4,750 km 2 (PFRA-AAFC 2008). No previously documented fish presence information was located for proposed crossings within the Upper North Saskatchewan River Watershed (FWMIS 2013). Although there is an absence of previously documented fish information for watercourses along this portion of the proposed pipeline corridor (Table 4.10), Wabamun Lake, a popular fish-bearing lake west of Edmonton, is located in this watershed. Northern pike, yellow perch and lake whitefish are known to occur in Lake Wabamun; however, as a result of recreational and sport-fishing, northern pike are showing clear signs of overexploitation and native stock of walleye have been extirpated (Schindler et al. 2004). Lake whitefish reproduction has been limited in the past and yellow perch do not reach a large enough size to support commercial or sport fisheries (Schindler et al. 2004). Wabamun Creek has historically provided the only route for fish to enter the lake from the North Saskatchewan River. Of the 26 species in the North Saskatchewan River, only 8 are found in Lake Wabamun (Schindler et al. 2004). TABLE 4.10 FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE UPPER NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER WATERSHED Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented No fish previously documented at proposed crossings in the Edmonton to Hinton Segment within the Upper North Saskatchewan River Watershed. Pembina River Watershed The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Pembina River Watershed from RK to RK The Pembina River drainage area is approximately 6,250 km 2 (PFRA-AAFC 2008) and contains Zebigler, Brule and Little Brule creeks, as well as the Lobstick and Pembina rivers. The Pembina River Watershed is the largest of the watersheds crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment, both in drainage area and the number of proposed watercourse crossings. The Pembina River flows eastwards for approximately 550 km from its headwaters, immediately south of Cadomin, Alberta, to its confluence with the Athabasca River, approximately 7 km west of the Town of Athabasca. The proposed pipeline corridor crosses Zeb-igler, Little Brule and Brule creeks, all of which flow in a general north direction and are direct tributaries to the Lobstick River. The Lobstick River flows northeast through Chip Lake and drains directly into the Pembina River, approximately 5 km downstream Page 4-12

13 from the proposed pipeline corridor s Lobstick River crossing. The crossing locations of Little Brule and Brule creeks are 6.5 km and 12.5 km, respectively, from the confluence with the Lobstick River. Indicator species found in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment within the Pembina River Watershed include Arctic grayling (as well as bull trout; burbot; northern pike; and walleye) (Table 4.11). The Pembina River is considered to be the southern limit of viable, self-reproducing Arctic grayling populations in Alberta (ASRD 2005) and are considered to be vulnerable to range contraction which is likely a result of the extreme environmental conditions in southern Alberta (low altitudes and low elevation). Populations in the Pembina River are likely to have higher mortality and are more susceptible to declines as a result of human activities (ASRD 2005). The species was previously extirpated from Little Brule Creek, before being re-introduced as sac-fry in 2009 (Hildebrandt pers. comm.). Since reintroduction, the species has been encountered during AESRD sampling in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline corridor in 2011 (Hildebrandt pers. comm.). Historically, bull trout were more widely distributed in the Pembina River than they are today (ASRD 2009). The closest documentation of bull trout to the crossing location of the Pembina River is approximately 155 km upstream (FWMIS 2013). According to a conservation ranking of 51 bull trout key areas identified in Alberta using the modified methodology from the Natural Heritage Network, the Pembina River population is considered to be High Risk (ASRD 2009). The population size in this watershed was determined to be between 50 and 250 mature adults. Bull trout are generally confined to the upstream reaches of major river systems in the Eastern Slopes (ASRD and ACA 2009b), like the Pembina River, so it is likely that the proposed pipeline corridor is beyond the lower boundary of the species range. Walleye and northern pike, coolwater species, have different distribution patterns compared to coldwater species (e.g., bull trout). Walleye and northern pike are both prevalent in the Pembina River (Nelson and Paetz 1992), although more predominantly in its mid to lower reaches, where the proposed pipeline corridor crossing location occurs. There is no known spawning timing and location information for sportfish in Lobstick and Pembina rivers, or Brule and Little Brule creeks (Sterling pers. comm.). Native Athabasca rainbow trout are not known in the Pembina River Watershed (Sterling pers. comm.). Other species of management concern found in watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor within the Pembina River Watershed include: brook trout; brown trout; rainbow trout (introduced populations); goldeye; mountain whitefish; yellow perch; and spoonhead sculpin (Table 4.11). In the middle reach of the Pembina River, near the proposed pipeline corridor crossing location, walleye and goldeye are the most abundant sportfish, whereas mountain whitefish are less abundant until the transition into the upper, colder reach of the Pembina River (Nelson and Paetz 1992). TABLE 4.11 FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE PEMBINA RIVER WATERSHED Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented AB-66 Pembina River Arctic grayling*, brook trout, bull trout*, burbot*, emerald shiner, fathead minnow, finescale dace, flathead chub, goldeye, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, mountain whitefish, northern pike*, pearl dace, rainbow trout (introduced populations), spoonhead sculpin, trout-perch, walleye*, white sucker and yellow perch. AB-78 Zeb-igler Creek Fathead minnow. AB-91, AB-92, AB-93 and AB-106 Unnamed tributaries to Chip Lake at RK 152.0, RK and RK White sucker, brook stickleback and fathead minnow. Page 4-13

14 TABLE 4.11 Cont'd Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented AB-92 Unnamed tributary to Brook stickleback and fathead minnow Chip Lake at RK AB-103 Unnamed NCD at Longnose sucker. RK AB-111 Little Brule Creek Arctic grayling*, brown trout, northern pike*, pearl dace and white sucker. AB-114 Unnamed tributary to Brook stickleback. Brule Creek at RK AB-116 Brule Creek Brook stickleback, longnose sucker and white sucker. AB-117 Lobstick River Burbot*, lake chub, longnose sucker, northern pike*, trout-perch and white sucker. AB-117 Lobstick River Burbot*, lake chub, longnose sucker, northern pike*, trout-perch and white sucker. Source: FWMIS 2013 Note: * Indicator species. Lower McLeod River Watershed The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Lower McLeod River Watershed from RK to RK The Lower McLeod River drainage area is approximately 4,750 km 2 (PFRA-AAFC 2008) and is the watershed of Carrot, January, Wolf, and Bench creeks, as well as the McLeod River. The McLeod River flows northeast for approximately 375 km to its confluence with the Athabasca River, directly outside the Town of Whitecourt, Alberta. The proposed pipeline corridor crosses several named tributaries that directly drain into the McLeod River including Carrot, January, Wolf and Bench creeks, as well as the McLeod River. The proposed pipeline corridor crosses Bench Creek at two locations: RK 227.5; and RK The crossing locations of Carrot, January and Wolf creeks are approximately 14 km, 24 km and 7 km, respectively, upstream from the confluence with the McLeod River. Indicator species previously documented in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment in the Lower McLeod River Watershed include: Athabasca rainbow trout; Arctic grayling; bull trout; burbot; walleye; and northern pike (Table 4.12). Although historically distributed in some watercourses within the Lower McLeod River Watershed which are crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment (e.g., Carrot Creek), genetically pure Athabasca River rainbow trout are no longer suspected to occur in any of these watercourses (Sterling pers. comm.). Genetically pure Athabasca rainbow trout do occur in the Wolf Creek drainage, but are only suspected to occur upstream from Wolf Lake (i.e., outside of the Lower McLeod River Watershed) (Sterling pers. comm.). Athabasca rainbow trout are also prevalent in the McLeod River, but primarily from the mid to upper reaches; they are not suspected to occur in the vicinity of the proposed crossing of the McLeod River (Sterling pers. comm.). Hybridization between Athabasca rainbow trout and introduced population rainbow trout has long been recognized as a conservation issue; however, in the Athabasca River Basin (i.e., inclusive of the Lower McLeod River Watershed), there has been no evidence of widespread introgression of hatchery alleles (i.e., loss of genetic integrity) (Taylor et al. 2007). While Arctic grayling do occur in the McLeod River Watershed, their occurrence within the McLeod River and its tributaries has declined substantially from the pre-1950s to the 1990s (ASRD 2005). A composite sample from the McLeod River and tributaries showed no fish older than 5 years of age. Some populations in specific tributaries to McLeod River have been wholly extirpated (ASRD 2005). No spawning information exists for trout species in the McLeod River, Wolf or Carrot creeks, although the McLeod River has the potential to support large numbers of mountain whitefish as they prepare to spawn in either the mainstem or its tributaries (Cox pers. comm.). The McLeod River also has the potential to Page 4-14

15 support Arctic grayling, which may begin to migrate to wintering habitat by the end of August (Cox pers. comm.). The provincial range of bull trout has been substantially reduced, especially in the southern and eastern portions of the historical range (Brewin and Brewin 1997). Local extinction for bull trout species in Alberta is not yet a concern; however, their southern limit has been greatly restricted which suggests strong environmental sensitivity and a preference for more pristine environments in the northerly regions (Haas and McPhail 1991). In Alberta, bull trout are generally confined to the upstream reaches of the McLeod River, especially abundant near the confluences of Drinnan, Mary Gregg and MacKenzie creeks (Brewin 1996), which is further upstream than the crossing locations along the proposed pipeline corridor. Few lakes and colder water limit the abundance of walleye and northern pike along this portion of the proposed pipeline corridor, however, typical distribution for northern pike and walleye in the McLeod River is approximately 50 km upstream of Edson to the confluence of the Athabasca River (Berry 1995, 1999). Other species of management concern located in watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor within the Lower McLeod River Watershed include: rainbow trout (introduced populations); mountain whitefish; brook trout; yellow perch; spoonhead sculpin; and northern redbelly dace (Table 4.12). TABLE 4.12 FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE LOWER MCLEOD RIVER WATERSHED Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented AB-119 Carrot Creek Arctic grayling*, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, mountain whitefish, northern pike*, spoonhead sculpin, spottail shiner, trout-perch and white sucker. AB-125 and AB-126 Unnamed tributaries to Brook stickleback. January Creek at RK and RK AB-128 January Creek Northern pike* and brook stickleback. AB-129 Wolf Creek Arctic grayling*, burbot*, mountain whitefish, northern pike*, rainbow trout (introduced populations), Athabasca rainbow trout *, walleye*, finescale dace, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, pearl dace, spoonhead sculpin, spottail shiner, trout-perch and white sucker. AB-131 McLeod River Arctic grayling*, brook trout, bull trout*, brook trout, bull trout hybrid, burbot*, mountain whitefish, northern pike*, rainbow trout (introduced populations), Athabasca rainbow trout, walleye*, yellow perch, goldeye, finescale dace, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, pearl dace, spoonhead sculpin, spottail shiner, trout-perch and white sucker. AB 132 and AB-136 Bench Creek Mountain whitefish, northern pike*, northern redbelly dace, brook stickleback, lake chub, longnose sucker, trout-perch, and white sucker. Source: FWMIS 2013 Note: * Indicator species. Upper McLeod River Watershed The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Upper McLeod River Watershed from RK to RK The Upper McLeod River drainage area is approximately 4,900 km 2 (PFRA-AAFC 2008) and contains Little Sundance and Sundance creeks. The Edmonton to Hinton Segment s crossing of Sundance Creek is approximately 6 km upstream from the confluence with the McLeod River. The Edmonton to Hinton Segment s crossing of Little Sundance Creek is approximately 4 km upstream from the confluence with the McLeod River. Little Sundance Creek drains into Sundance Creek approximately 1 km upstream from the confluence with the McLeod River. Page 4-15

16 Indicator species occurring in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment in the Upper McLeod River watershed include: Arctic grayling; Athabasca rainbow trout; and burbot (Table 4.13). Sundance Creek is recognized as productive fish habitat for Arctic grayling and Athabasca rainbow trout (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Although some introgression of genetic characteristics may occur in some rainbow trout in Sundance and Little Sundance creeks, possible pure Athabasca rainbow trout occur in both watercourses (Sterling pers. comm.). In 1996, the Alberta Natural Resources Service funded a Fisheries Management Enhancement Program project to collect sportfish inventory on Sundance Creek in which Athabasca rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, northern pike and burbot were all captured on the surveys (Johnson and Walker 1997). In 1991, R.L. & L (1995) was retained by Trout Unlimited Canada to determine the present status of fish populations in Sundance Creek through systematic fisheries surveys. During summer and fall of 1991 and spring of 1992, a total of 1,310 fish were captured in the Sundance and Little Sundance creeks. There were 13 different species caught in both creeks; 8 were sportfish in Sundance Creek and 7 were sportfish in Little Sundance Creek. The dominant sportfish captured in Sundance Creek were mountain whitefish (41.5% of catch) and Arctic grayling (19.6% of catch). Other sportfish that were caught were burbot, brown trout, brook trout, rainbow trout and bull trout. The dominant sportfish captured in Little Sundance Creek were brook trout (21.1% of catch) and mountain whitefish (15.6% of total catch). Other sportfish captured were burbot, Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, brown trout and bull trout (R.L. & L 1995). Note that of these species reported by R.L. & L (1995), brown trout are not listed on FWMIS records. No distinction was made between Athabasca and introduced populations of rainbow trout in this study. In general, for most streams and rivers in the Athabasca area, Arctic grayling are now virtually absent and rainbow trout appear to be less abundant than they were 50 years ago, irrespective of them remaining much smaller and slower-growing than they use to be (ASRD and ACA 2009a). No spawning information exists for trout species in Little Sundance and Sundance creeks (Cox pers. comm.). Some research suggests that the effects contributing to the decline of Arctic grayling occur at varying levels across the range of the fish and that there may actually be a gap in the knowledge regarding Arctic grayling populations. For example, spawning populations that prefer small shallow streams (typically third order or smaller) are easily targeted by backpack electrofishing, whereas adult populations that prefer colder, deeper systems (typically fifth or sixth order systems) are mostly dominated by angling and boat and/or float electrofishing as the prime method of sampling (Christie et al. 2010). It is the intermediate sized streams that are often difficult to sample, based on lack of appropriate sampling method and where the gap in knowledge of Arctic grayling populations lies. In a study conducted by Christie et al. (2010), snorkelling was carried out in intermediate streams (fourth or fifth order),including Sundance Creek, to potentially document and supplement catchment scale status assessments across the historic range of Arctic grayling. Snorkelling is deemed to be a feasible method for determining fish presence in systems that are difficult to sample (Christie et al. 2010). In Sundance Creek, eight Arctic grayling and three rainbow trout (i.e., whose level of purity was undetermined) were captured via angling. It was noted that most species were captured in deeper sections where a run and riffle were entering a pool. During the snorkel surveys, 5 Arctic grayling, 27 rainbow trout and 44 mountain whitefish were observed. A large number of juvenile salmonids that could not be positively identified as either Arctic grayling or mountain whitefish were also observed (Christie et al. 2010). The snorkelling and angling locations conducted in this study are approximately 3.5 km downstream from the proposed crossing location of the proposed pipeline corridor, affirming the presence of both juvenile and adult indicator species within the vicinity of the Project. Mountain whitefish, brook trout and spoonhead sculpin are other species of management concern that are located in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment within the Upper McLeod River Watershed (Table 4.13). Research has shown that mountain whitefish are correlated with stream size and gradient, and may be the most influencing factors when determining their distribution and abundance (Meyer et al. 2009). In a study completed in the Snake River Basin in Idaho, mountain whitefish were present in 88% of the study areas where the stream channel width was greater than 15 m, but only at 3% of the study sites where the channel width was less than 10 m (Meyer et al. 2009). The study suggests that mountain whitefish are located in larger (10-15 m channel width), lower-gradient and mainstem rivers, especially while fish are fast-growing prior to reaching sexual maturity (Meyer et al. 2009). Page 4-16

17 TABLE 4.13 FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS WITHIN THE UPPER MCLEOD RIVER WATERSHED Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented AB-137 Little Sundance Creek Arctic grayling*, brook trout, burbot*, mountain whitefish, Athabasca rainbow trout 1 *, brook stickleback, finescale dace, lake chub, longnose sucker, pearl dace, spoonhead sculpin and white sucker. AB-138 Sundance Creek Arctic grayling*, brook stickleback, burbot*, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, mountain whitefish, pearl dace, Athabasca rainbow trout 1 *, spoonhead sculpin, trout-perch and white sucker. AB-141 Unnamed tributary to McLeod River at RK Brook stickleback, finescale dace, lake chub and pearl dace. Sources: FWMIS 2013, R.L. & L Notes: 1 Indicates possible pure Athabasca rainbow trout (Sterling pers. comm). * Indicator species. Athabasca River Watershed The proposed pipeline corridor encounters the Athabasca River Watershed from RK to RK The Athabasca River drainage area is approximately 2,400 km 2 (PFRA-AAFC 2008) and contains Rooster, Ponoka, Roundcroft, Sandstone, Hunt, Trail, Hardisty and Maskuta creeks, all of which are direct tributaries to the Athabasca River. The Athabasca River generally flows northeast from its mountain headwaters at approximately 1,500 m asl in Jasper National Park in west central Alberta. It flows across the province and drains into Lake Athabasca, north of the City of Fort McMurray in northeast Alberta, at approximately 200 m asl. The proposed crossing locations of Ponoka, Roundcroft, Sandstone, Hunt, Happy, Hardisty and Maskuta creeks are all approximately 4 km upstream from their confluence with the Athabasca River. The proposed crossing locations of Rooster and Trail creeks are approximately 9 km and 500 m upstream, respectively, from each watercourses confluence with the Athabasca River. Indicator species which occur in watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment in the Athabasca River Watershed include: Athabasca rainbow trout; bull trout; northern pike; and burbot (Table 4.14). The Peace, Liard and Athabasca River basins contain native Athabasca rainbow trout (Tayler et al. 2007). Athabasca rainbow trout are distributed throughout the headwaters of the Athabasca River system with an extent of occurrence of approximately 19,100 km 2 and 21,000 km ² (ASRD and ACA 2009a). It is documented that both populations of rainbow trout (i.e., Athabasca River and introduced populations) persist in the Athabasca River mainstem (Sterling pers. comm.). However, most rainbow trout populations in stream habitats within the Athabasca drainage do not appear to hybridize with introduced rainbow trout, likely due to the fact that stocking rainbow trout occurred from the 1920s to the 1960s and low introductions have occurred since (Taylor et al. 2007). There has been considerable opportunity for natural selection or immigration to eliminate hatchery genotypes over the past 80 years if stocking did occur in Athabasca River tributaries (Taylor et al. 2007). Native trout gene pools have persisted, in spite of past stocking efforts with genetically different populations (Taylor et al. 2007). Genetically pure Athabasca rainbow trout have been confirmed, through genetic analysis, in Sandstone Creek (Sterling pers. comm.). It is suspected, although not yet confirmed, that Athabasca rainbow trout also occur in some watercourses crossed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment within this watershed (e.g., Ponoka Creek) (Sterling pers. comm.). Alternatively, it is suspected that other watercourses crossed in this watershed (e.g., Hunt, Maskuta and Hardisty creeks) may not contain pure Athabasca rainbow trout, considering historic stocking in nearby locations (Sterling pers. comm.). In general, bull trout still occur in high numbers in the North Saskatchewan, Athabasca and Peace-Smoky River watersheds, but they are still below their historic levels in most locations (ASRD 2012). Bull trout are generally confined to the upstream reaches of drainages in Alberta (Peace, Athabasca and North Saskatchewan River basins), but they do occur further from the mountains in the Athabasca and Peace Page 4-17

18 river basins, just in lower abundances (ASRD and ACA 2009b). The tributary system of the Athabasca River drainage still supports a self-sustaining population, but some have been extirpated (ASRD and ACA 2009b). A study conducted by Brewin (1996) suggests that Roundcroft Creek may provide important bull trout habitat. Although none were caught on that particular study, the high abundance of brook trout and rainbow trout suggested potential preference for suitable spawning habitat (Brewin 1996). The Hardisty Creek Restoration Project took place between 2005 and 2008, in the Town of Hinton, to document fish species diversity, abundance and distribution following the completion of three fish migration barrier removals (McCleary 2009). Prior to the restoration project, only rainbow trout and brook trout were previously documented in middle sections of Hardisty Creek; however, once the migration barriers were removed, four additional species were captured upstream from the restoration project area, including bull trout, mountain whitefish, northern pike and longnose dace. During post-construction monitoring, fish abundance was highest in 2007 for bull trout and rainbow trout, following the fish passage remediation (McCleary 2009). No distinction was made between Athabasca rainbow trout and introduced populations of rainbow trout in this study. Within the Athabasca River Watershed, burbot occur in some foothill streams but are generally rare to the Rocky Mountains, although some individuals occasionally undergo movements into mountain streams, most commonly in the Clearwater River (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Based on their species-specific habitat requirement and life history traits (Table 4.26), burbot are not expected to occur within the proposed crossings within the Athabasca River Watershed and as a result, there is an overall lack of fish distribution information on burbot in this geographical area. Other species of management concern located in watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor within the Athabasca River Watershed include: rainbow trout (introduced populations); brook trout; and mountain whitefish (Table 4.14). The upper mainstem of the Athabasca River is considered to be an unproductive trout fishery, but is especially noted for its large mountain whitefish (up to 2 kg), which are captured at the entry of the McLeod River (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Mountain whitefish do not use foothill streams as extensively as rainbow trout or bull trout, but during the Hardisty Creek Restoration Project (above), juvenile mountain whitefish were frequently captured (McCleary 2009). It should be noted that no documented records of fish presence were located for Happy Creek, although fish presence is suspected (Cox pers. comm.). TABLE 4.14 FISH SPECIES PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED IN WATERCOURSES WITH PROPOSED CROSSINGS IN THE ATHABASCA RIVER WATERSHED Master Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Fish Species Previously Documented AB-153 Rooster Creek Athabasca rainbow trout. 1 * AB-155 Ponoka Creek Brook trout and Athabasca rainbow trout. 1 * AB-157 Roundcroft Creek Brook trout, bull trout and Athabasca rainbow trout. 1 * AB-162 Sandstone Creek Brook trout and Athabasca rainbow trout. AB-164 Hunt Creek Brook trout and rainbow trout. 2 AB-167 Trail Creek Brook trout, northern pike* and rainbow trout. 2 * AB-168 Unnamed tributary to Brook trout. Athabasca River at RK AB-177 Cache Percotte Athabasca rainbow trout. 1 * Creek AB-180 Hardisty Creek Brook trout, bull trout*, burbot*, longnose dace, mountain whitefish, northern pike*, pearl dace and rainbow trout. 2 AB-188 Maskuta Creek 3 Brook stickleback, bull trout*, burbot*, longnose sucker, mountain whitefish, northern pike*, pearl dace, rainbow trout 2 and spoonhead sculpin. Source: FWMIS 2013 Notes: 1 Indicates suspected pure Athabasca rainbow (Sterling pers. comm.). 2 Indicates suspected impure Athabasca rainbow (Sterling pers. comm.). Page 4-18

19 3 Indicates that, although not documented in Maskuta Creek, brook trout are documented in Cold Creek, a tributary located upstream from the proposed pipeline corridor. The species is suspected to occur in Maskuta Creek as well (Cox pers. comm.). * Indicator species Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Along the proposed pipeline corridor of the Edmonton to Hinton Segment, the desktop review identified that fish are still harvested by many Aboriginal communities. Traditional fishing activities occur in waterbodies and watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor, and the species caught change seasonally. Species caught in the region include mountain trout (trout species), whitefish (mountain whitefish), jackfish (northern pike), rainbow trout, perch and pickerel (walleye) (Montana First Nation 2011, Neufeld 2012). Aboriginal harvesters are particularly concerned about future linear developments following the 2005 Canadian National Railway oil spill at Wabamun Lake (Northern Gateway Pipelines Ltd. Partnership [NGPLP] 2010). Fish play a large role in the subsistence lifestyle of many Aboriginal individuals and communities along the proposed Edmonton to Hinton Segment. Concerns identified through engagement on other development projects that relate to aquatic resources include diminishing water quality and increased industrial pollution resulting in unhealthy wildlife since fish are often a food source for other animals of subsistence or cultural value as well as contaminant pathways to harvesters and human health. Other recorded concerns include increased public access to fishing sites and the cumulative effects of pipeline construction at watercourse crossings such as turbidity and water quality and quantity (Lifeways of Canada 2012, NGPLP 2010). 4.3 Indicator Fish Species Life history, distribution and habitat requirements for the Project s indicator species found in watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment are presented in the discussion below. General water quality and habitat requirements for the indicator species are presented in Sections to Descriptions and distribution information for other species of management concern not listed as an indicator species are presented in Section General Water Quality and Habitat Requirements for Indicator Species Water quality and habitat requirements, with respect to the life histories of bull trout, Arctic grayling, Athabasca rainbow trout, northern pike, walleye and burbot, are presented in the following sections. Irrespective of their unique habitat requirements, generally these species require suitable substrate for spawning, moderate DO levels (> 5.0 mg/l), moderate velocities ( m/s), deep pools for wintering, and important channel features including riffle, run, pool transitions and cover. These species are also sensitive to increases in sediment concentrations that are outside of the natural stream load. Disruption of natural sediment levels in aquatic environments can affect their natural substrate and prevent oxygen from reaching eggs during incubation, which ultimately can impair survival of fish eggs, reduce the penetration of light through the water column and physically damage fish gills. The effects of elevated sediment concentrations can vary depending on several factors including the composition, size and angularity of particles, as well as the duration in which sediment is introduced. Specific species-dependent literature data for tolerable suspended sediment levels is lacking, however, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2007) state that in clear flow, maximum increase of suspended sediments should increase by a maximum of 25 mg/l from background levels for any short-term exposure (24 hour period) and only a maximum average increase of 5 mg/l from background levels for longer term exposure (24 hour to 30 day period). In general, fish eggs are larvae and are highly susceptible to suspended particles, whereas juveniles and adults are more resilient since earlier life stages cannot use avoidance behaviour (CCME 2007). DFO has defined levels of risk associated with increases in sediment concentration in watercourses: an increase of less than 25 mg/l above background poses a very low risk to fish and their habitat; an increase of mg/l is low risk; an increase of mg/l is moderate risk; an increase of mg/l is high risk; and an increase in excess of 400 mg/l is an unacceptable Page 4-19

20 risk (Birtwell 1999). Birtwell (1999) also concluded that elevated levels of sediment (typically over background) may pose harmful risks to fish (e.g., acutely lethal or sublethal responses that compromises survival) or negatively affect their habitat. Effects of sediment are more pronounced during winter months or when flow conditions are reduced. DO is another important parameter to consider within an aquatic ecosystem. Fish metabolic rates are affected directly and indirectly by fluctuations in DO solubility and availability. The DO effects on biota can be immense, ranging from effects to blood characteristics, respiration, reproduction and survival (Alberta Environmental Protection 1997). The most common effect of low DO levels on fish is hypoxia, which causes mortality by asphyxiation as lower than normal amounts of oxygen are being delivered to the brain and tissues (Barton and Taylor 1996). The CCME (2007) guideline for DO 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). In Alberta, the acute DO guideline for surface water is 5.0 mg/l for a 1 day minimum, whereas the chronic DO guideline for surface water is 6.5 mg/l for a 7 day mean (Alberta Environmental Protection 1997). However, it is noted that the chronic guideline should be increased to 9.5 mg/l for the areas and times when embryonic and larval stages develop within gravel beds. This 3 mg/l increase would account for the depletion of DO in gravel (Alberta Environmental Protection 1997). Barton and Taylor (1996) suggest similar guidelines to CCME, where salmonids, whitefishes and nonsalmonids have a 7 day mean minimum of 5.0 mg/l, but early life salmonids have a 7 day mean minimum 9.5 mg/l and whitefishes and non-salmonids have a 7 day mean minimum of 6.5 mg/l and 6.0 mg/l, respectively (Table 4.15). However, some species (e.g., cyprinid and stickleback species) found in northern climates can tolerate and survive even lower DO levels (Barton and Taylor 1996). TABLE 4.15 RECOMMENDED DISSOLVED OXYGEN CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE Reference Early Life (mg/l) Fry (mg/l) Adult (mg/l) CCME 2007 coolwater fishes coldwater fishes Barton and Taylor 1996 salmonids * whitefish * non-salmonids * Notes: * Dissolved oxygen levels are based on a 7 day mean. 1 Coolwater indicator species include: northern pike; walleye; and burbot. 2 Coldwater indicator species include: bull trout; Arctic grayling; Athabasca rainbow trout; and burbot. Water quantity is also critical; the loss of flow or inadequate discharge can severely reduce the availability of habitat and instream flow requirements for wintering or rearing fishes, especially during winter months. In Alberta, AESRD manages the use of water using several tools including instream flow need and base flow calculations, water diversion licences that specify an allocation of a specific volume and the use of a water conservation objective that defines the quantity and quality of water to remain in a waterbody. Alberta has also developed the Water for Life partnership which is a governance process for allocating and managing protected and diverted waters throughout Alberta s river basins (AESRD 2012e). Partners include, among others, the Alberta Water Council, Watershed Planning and Advisory Council, Watershed Stewardship Group, Irrigation Districts and Municipalities (AESRD 2012e) Bull Trout Life History and Biology Bull trout are frequently referenced as having the most sensitive and complex habitat requirements among trout and char species in Western North America (Brewin et al. 2001, Mackay et al. 1997). They are a late summer to early fall spawning species, typically occurring from mid-august to late October that requires clean gravels and groundwater inflow for spawning (ASRD and ACA 2009b). Bull trout eggs incubate in the gravel and hatch in the springtime from March to April. While in the gravel, bull trout eggs Page 4-20

21 are susceptible to several environmental and biological factors, including deposition of sediment, stream bed scour and wading mammals. Upon hatching in the springtime, there is a downstream migration of young-of-the-year to low velocity backwater areas, lakes or side channels (ASRD and ACA 2009b). Juvenile bull trout prefer pool-run habitats with cobble and boulder substrates, and as they grow to adults, they seek deeper pools associated with large, woody debris in lower tributary reaches (ASRD and ACA 2009b). Once mature, bull trout typically spawn annually and in some populations spawning may occur biannually (ASRD 2012). They are slow growing and late maturing with first spawning age occurring between 1 and 7 years (ASRD 2012). Bull trout express three different life history strategies in Alberta: stream-resident; fluvial; and adfluvial (ASRD 2012). The latter two life history strategies are migratory forms and the movements can range from short distances up to 250 km to access spawning grounds (ASRD 2012). Growth rates of bull trout largely depend on their life history strategy. Prey availability instream is typically a lot less than adfluvial or fluvial systems and as a result, bull trout are typically much smaller in resident systems (ASRD 2012). Bull trout are opportunistic foragers that are often a top predator in the ecosystems where they occur. Smaller bull trout and juveniles feed on insects, benthos and amphipods, whereas adult bull trout strictly eat other fish including brook trout, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and mountain whitefish (ASRD 2012). Bull trout susceptibility to angler overharvest, slow maturity and sensitive habitat requirements, as well as competition from introduced non-native species and habitat fragmentation, are frequently cited as factors contributing to the species decline through most of their range in North America (e.g., Berry 1994, Brewin 1997, Pollard and Down 2001, Post and Johnston 2002) Water Quality and Habitat Specific water quality and habitat requirements for bull trout are presented below (Table 4.16). TABLE 4.16 WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR BULL TROUT Preferred Temperature ( C) Preferred DO Concentration (mg/l) Preferred Current Velocity (m/s) Depth Preference (m) Preferred Substrate Spawning 2.0 to 4.0 (< 8.0) (< 0.9) (< 1m) Gravel-cobble with less than 10% fine sediment. Rearing 4.0 to Small rootwads, boulder, small wood and cobble. Wintering < > 0.8 Stable, unembedded cobble. Sources: ASRD 2012, ASRD and ACA 2009b, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Scott and Crossman 1973 Preferred Channel Morphology and Habitat Attributes Groundwater upwelling, tailouts of pools and headwaters of riffles and interstices of bottom substrate. Edge of tributaries with abundant cover and low velocities. Lakes, rivers, beaver ponds and groundwater seepage or springs Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of bull trout previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.17). Page 4-21

22 TABLE 4.17 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF BULL TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006b) Bull trout AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-157 Roundcroft Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-180 Hardisty Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 Source: FWMIS Arctic Grayling Life History and Biology Populations of Arctic grayling occupy three watersheds in Alberta: the Hay River; the Peace River; and the Athabasca River. With respect to temperature, water levels, gradients and winter conditions, Arctic grayling live in environmentally variable conditions compared to other fish species that require stable environments. 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 the cold and coolwater streams, rivers and lakes, usually occupying boreal and foothill rivers and streams, and occasionally small lakes. Spawning, in general, takes place at the end of April and early May in small tributaries where a female will enter a male s territory and produce up to 6,000 eggs in gravel interstices (ASRD 2005). After about a week, Arctic grayling fry swim up to surface water and drift into slow-moving creek margins and backwaters. Arctic grayling are fast growing and reach 35 cm at about 5 to 6 years of age, which is the minimum size for anglers in Alberta (ASRD 2005). Newly emerged Arctic grayling prefer shallow riffles, side pools, back and side channels, while adult Arctic grayling prefer deeper water. Younger Arctic grayling feed on insects such as mayflies, caddisflies and chironomids, whereas adults will also feed on terrestrial invertebrates including beetles, ants and grasshoppers (ASRD 2005). 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 (ASRD 2005, Berry 1998). Arctic grayling distribute themselves instream according to size. Juveniles and smaller fish occupy positions downstream, whereas larger Arctic grayling occupy themselves more upstream. Arctic grayling are highly mobile and use different reaches of the stream. Habitat fragmentation disrupting Arctic grayling movement is one of the biggest contributors affecting populations (ASRD 2010a) Water Quality and Habitat Specific water quality and habitat requirements for Arctic grayling are presented below (Table 4.18). TABLE 4.18 WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCTIC GRAYLING Preferred Temperature ( C) Preferred DO Concentration (mg/l) Preferred Current Velocity (m/s) Depth Preference (m) Preferred Substrate Spawning 5.0 to 10.0 > Gravel to boulder. Preferred Channel Morphology and Habitat Attributes Small tributaries out of streams, outlets of lakes and some rivers if substrate is suitable. Page 4-22

23 TABLE 4.18 Cont'd Preferred Temperature ( C) Preferred DO Concentration (mg/l) Preferred Current Velocity (m/s) Depth Preference (m) Preferred Substrate Rearing 10.0 to 12.0 > 6.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 Silt-free gravel, boulder and sand. Wintering Insufficient information > > 1.2 Gravel, cobble and boulder. Sources: ASRD 2005, 2010, Berry 1998, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Scott and Crossman 1973 Preferred Channel Morphology and Habitat Attributes Shallow riffle and runs, and back and side channels. Streams that drain large wetlands and large rivers and lakes Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of Arctic grayling previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.19). TABLE 4.19 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF ARCTIC GRAYLING WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006b) Arctic grayling AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-111 Little Brule Creek Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-119 Carrot Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-137 Little Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-148 Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 Source: FWMIS Athabasca Rainbow Trout Life History and Biology In Alberta, Athabasca rainbow trout populations are confined to western drainage systems, primarily occurring in only three rivers east of the continental divide: the Peace; Liard; and Athabasca rivers. Athabasca rainbow trout are an indigenous stock of rainbow trout in Alberta restricted to an area less than 2,000 km 2 within the Upper Athabasca River Watershed, its tributaries and headwater streams including the McLeod, Berland, Wildhay and Freeman rivers (ASRD and ACA 2009a). A native population of Athabasca rainbow trout occur in the Project area, although introduced populations of rainbow trout are also known to occur. Confirmed, suspected or potential populations of pure Athabasca rainbow trout occur in the Athabasca, Upper McLeod and Lower McLeod watersheds. Athabasca rainbow trout preferred habitat is typically second to fourth order streams that are only a few meters wide (ASRD and ACA 2009a). Athabasca rainbow trout prefer habitat that remains cool, even in the summer. They are typically found in relatively unproductive headwaters which are well-oxygenated and have abundant fine gravel. Athabasca rainbow trout, unlike their introduced counterparts, spawn in late May or June, grow more slowly and mature at a smaller size. They are more adapted to the coldwater environment and it is believed that this unique habitat characteristic contributes to their unique biological considerations (ASRD and ACA 2009a). Athabasca rainbow trout spawn almost exclusively in streams (Raleigh et al. 1984), typically in water temperatures of about 6 C. At the age of three, females are sexually mature, whereas males are sexually mature during their second year. Juvenile and adult rainbow trout are opportunistic feeders and consume Page 4-23

24 a wide array of food, depending on what is available. During the summer, they primarily feed on terrestrial insects as they are most predominant, but during winter months they feed on bottom fauna (Raleigh et al. 1984). Recreational fishing, logging, non-native species and climate change are all factors contributing to the decline of the Athabasca rainbow trout populations in Alberta (ASRD and ACA 2009) Water Quality and Habitat Specific water quality and habitat requirements for Athabasca rainbow trout are presented below (Table 4.20). TABLE 4.20 WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATHABASCA RAINBOW TROUT Preferred Temperature ( C) Preferred DO Concentration (mg/l) Preferred Current Velocity (m/s) Depth Preference (m) Preferred Substrate Spawning > 6.0 > < 0.25 Fine gravel that is free of fine sediment. Preferred Channel Morphology and Habitat Attributes Riffle habitat situated above a pool. Rearing 12.0 to < 10% fines. Pool areas with abundant cover and interstices between rocks. Wintering Insufficient information > 5.0 * Minimal - Moderate 1 Deep (> 2.0) * Primarily gravels. * Sources: ASRD and ACA 2009a, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Raleigh et al. 1984, Scott and Crossman 1973 Note: * Generalization made from accessible information. Lakes and deep pools of watercourses Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of Athabasca rainbow trout previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.21). TABLE 4.21 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF ATHABASCA RAINBOW TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006b) Athabasca rainbow trout AB-129 Wolf Creek 1 Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-131 McLeod River 1 Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-137 Little Sundance Creek 2 Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-138 Sundance Creek 2 Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-153 Rooster Creek 3 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-155 Ponoka Creek 3 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-157 Roundcroft Creek 3 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-162 Sandstone Creek 4 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-164 Hunt Creek 5 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-167 Trail Creek 5 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-177 Cache Percotte Creek 3 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-180 Hardisty Creek 5 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-188 Maskuta Creek 5 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 Source: FWMIS 2013 Notes: 1 Indicates pure strain Athabasca rainbow trout occur upstream outside the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA (Sterling pers. comm.). Page 4-24

25 2 Indicates possible pure strain Athabasca rainbow trout within the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA (Sterling pers. comm.). 3 Indicates suspected pure strain Athabasca rainbow trout within the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA (Sterling pers. comm.). 4 Indicates confirmed Athabasca rainbow trout within the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA (Sterling pers. comm.). 5 Indicates unlikely pure strain Athabasca rainbow trout within the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA (Sterling pers. comm.) Northern Pike Life History and Biology Northern pike is a coolwater sportfish that prefers relatively shallow, weedy and clear water. They prefer eutrophic lakes and spend their time in the same general area for a long period of time. They can also occur primarily in lakes and marshes, but are commonly found in streams and rivers with slow to moderate currents. Northern pike are known for their powerful jaws and well-developed teeth which makes them a voracious predator that feeds on insects as well as fish, amphibians and small mammals and birds (Berry 1999, Nelson and Paetz 1992). Northern pike spawn in the early spring, often before all of the ice cover has melted (Berry 1999). Females do not select specific sites or build redds. Typical spawning areas include shallow marsh areas or flooded vegetation that forms shallow bays. The presence of vegetation is important for spawning success since their eggs stick to vegetation (Inskip 1982). Once the eggs are released, they attach to vegetation for approximately 12 to 17 days until new larvae hatch and it is thought that this may help them stay off the bottom where silt accumulations and lower DO concentrations often occur. The premature young remain in the vegetation and lie motionless for 5-10 days, absorbing as many nutrients from the yolk sac (Berry 1999). The fry diet changes quickly as they grow and they begin to feed on zooplankton, insects and eventually they convert to a predominantly fish based diet only. They become piscivorous very early in life (Inskip 1982). Northern pike are ambush predators, which allow them to assume the role of the top predator in the food chain (Berry 1999). Juvenile northern pike can exceed a length of 20 cm in their first year and can attain a length of 115 cm (Berry 1999). Although Alberta considers northern pike as Secure (ASRD 2010a), the species has experienced severe population declines across most of their range and the province has implemented management and recovery plans (Berry 1999). Angler overharvest, habitat degradation and their dependency on the presence of dense vegetation are commonly cited in these management plans as key factors that have led to the decline of these species Water Quality and Habitat Specific water quality and habitat requirements for northern pike are presented below (Table 4.22). TABLE 4.22 WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR NORTHERN PIKE Preferred Temperature ( C) Preferred DO Concentration (mg/l) Preferred Current Velocity (m/s) Depth Preference (m) Preferred Substrate Spawning 6.0 to < Mats and hummocks of vegetation. Rearing 7.5 to 20.0 > < 4.0 Shoreline vegetation. Preferred Channel Morphology and Habitat Attributes Shallow marshes linked to lakes and well-vegetated flood plains of streams and rivers. Dense submergent and emergent vegetation in calm bays of sloughs and marshes or back eddies of tributaries. Page 4-25

26 TABLE 4.22 Cont'd Wintering Preferred Temperature ( C) Insufficient information Preferred DO Concentration (mg/l) Preferred Current Velocity (m/s) Depth Preference (m) Preferred Substrate > Minimal (< 0.1) * Moderate (> 1.0) * Ample aquatic vegetation and fines. Sources: Berry 1999, Inskip 1982, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Scott and Crossman 1973 Note: * Generalization made from accessible information. Preferred Channel Morphology and Habitat Attributes Shallow, heavily vegetated lakes and rivers with low discharges Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of northern pike previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.23). TABLE 4.23 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF NORTHERN PIKE OBSERVATIONS WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Northern pike AB-13 Whitemud Creek Middle North Saskatchewan River AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) April 16 to June 30 September 16 to July 31 AB-26 Kilini Creek Sturgeon River April 16 to June 30 AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-111 Little Brule Creek Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-117 Lobstick River Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-119 Carrot Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-128 January Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-132 and AB-136 Bench Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-180 Hardisty Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July Walleye Life History and Biology In Alberta, walleye can occur from Petitot, Hay, Salve, Peace, Athabasca, Beaver, North Saskatchewan, Lower Battle, Lower Red Deer, Lower Bow, Lower Oldman and South Saskatchewan River drainages (Nelson and Patez 1992). They are considered a coolwater species and prefer moderately fertile lakes (Berry 1995). Spawning occurs when water reaches 5 C, usually in April or May and before pike and suckers spawn. Generally, spawning occurs in inlet streams or over shallow, rocky bars within lakes (Berry 1995). Walleye spawning typically happens over night in large concentrations over a few days (McMahon et al. 1984). Once the eggs are released, they settle to the bottom and stay in spaces between the rocks, pebbles or woody debris. The newly hatched fry float downstream or in lake current for about 4 to 5 days Page 4-26

27 (Berry 1995). It is critical for fry populations to obtain zooplankton or populations can be subject to starvation. Mortality rates of walleye population have been as high as 99% between spawning and the first feeding (Berry 1995). Walleye are photosensitive and seek areas of dim light, especially in clear waters (McMahon et al. 1984). The growth of walleye is relatively slow, yet walleye can live up to 30 years old, reaching a maximum length of 100 cm, but they typically live to at least 17 years of age (Berry 1995, McMahon et al. 1984). While walleye is classified as Secure in Alberta (ASRD 2010a), several populations have been lost over the years. Walleye have been extirpated from Wabamun Lake in the 1920s and Pigeon Lake in the 1960s, (although the species has since been re-introduced) and have been nearly extirpated from Skeleton and Lac La Biche lakes in the 1970s (Berry 1995). Despite several stocking programs, populations have still declined as the adult proportion has been reduced to low levels from overharvest. Along with angling, land clearing and the removal of shoreline weed beds, a limited number of large lakes in Alberta and the slow growth and late maturity of walleye have been a few other factors contributing to their slow growth as a population (Berry 1995). Alberta developed a management and recovery plan for the species in Water Quality and Habitat Specific water quality and habitat requirements for walleye are presented below (Table 4.24). TABLE 4.24 WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR WALLEYE Preferred Temperature ( C) Preferred DO Concentration (mg/l) Preferred Current Velocity (m/s) Depth Preference (m) Preferred Substrate Spawning 6.0 to 9.0 > Boulder to coarse gravel and clean rubble. Preferred Channel Morphology and Habitat Attributes Inlet streams or tributaries. Rearing > 15.0 > Gravel-cobble. Large, shallow and turbid lakes. Wintering Insufficient information > 6.0 Minimal * Deep (> 5.0) * Variable and mostly gravels. 1 Sources: Berry 1995, McMahon et al. 1984, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Scott and Crossman 1973 Note: * Generalization made from accessible information. Deep pools Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of walleye previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.25). TABLE 4.25 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF WALLEYE WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Walleye AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July 31 AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River September 15 to July 31 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 Page 4-27

28 4.3.7 Burbot Life History and Biology Burbot are a coldwater sportfish that occur in deep and cold lakes, rivers and small streams. Burbot prey and scavenge on fish, insect larvae and fish eggs. They are known to inhabit most river drainages throughout Alberta, although occurrences are rare in the streams and rivers of the Rocky Mountains. The species inhabits the Athabasca, Battle, Beaver, Bow, Hay, Milk, North Saskatchewan, Oldman, Peace, Petitot, Red Deer and Slave River drainages (Langhorne et al. 2001). Burbot can be distinguished by the presence of a single mandible barbel and barbels protruding from the nares (one barbel per nare). Their second dorsal fin and anal fin are equal in length and extend posterially to just before the origin of the caudal fin, which is rounded. Spawning occurs in winter to early spring (Nelson and Paetz 1992) and, in rivers, occurs in areas with gravel, sand, and fine silt (McPhail 1997). Burbot have been documented to travel long distances during spawning migrations in Alberta (AAR 2009). Burbot are a broadcast spawning species. Eggs do not adhere where deposited, but will drift until becoming lodged in substrate. Burbot prefer temperatures of 0.6 ºC to 1.7ºC and tend to spawn in less than 2 m of water, generally below ice cover (Langhorne et al. 2001). In fluvial systems, little is known about rearing conditions and larval ecology of burbot. They are known to prefer temperatures greater than 8ºC and water velocities of less than 0.5 m/s. In the Upper Columbia River, however, larval burbot are known to inhabit calm deep waters (3-7.5 m) directly downstream of the spawning areas (McPhail 1997). Burbot reach reproductive maturity at approximately age three, a period in which burbot begin to experience greater growth during the winter months as opposed to the summer months, which is generally the norm for most other fish species (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Nelson and Paetz (1992) also indicate that although their popularity as a sportfish is increasing, a large portion of the angler harvest often results from incidental catches of burbot by anglers targeting other more highly desired species Water Quality and Habitat Specific water quality and habitat requirements for burbot are presented below (Table 4.26). TABLE 4.26 WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FOR BURBOT Preferred Temperature ( C) Preferred DO Concentration (mg/l) Preferred Current Velocity (m/s) Depth Preference (m) Preferred Substrate Spawning 0.6 to 1.7 > Minimal < 2.0 Boulder, cobble or gravel with small amounts of silt, sand and detritus. Rearing > 8.0 > 5.0 < 0.5 < 0.7 Rubble and cobble. Wintering Insufficient information > 3.0 Low * Moderate (2.0) * Sandy substrates. * Preferred Channel Morphology and Habitat Attributes Shallow bays or on shoals of lakes and rivers. Rocky shores and weedy areas. Deep water of lakes and large rivers. Sources: Joynt and Sullivan 2003, Langhorne et al. 2001, McPhail 1997, Nelson and Paetz 1992 Note: * Generalization made from accessible information Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of burbot previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.27). Page 4-28

29 TABLE 4.27 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF BURBOT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Burbot AB-13 Whitemud Creek Middle North Saskatchewan River AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) April 16 to June 30 September 16 to July 31 AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-117 Lobstick River Pembina River September 15 to July 31 AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River September 15 to July 31 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-137 Little Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-138 Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-180 Hardisty Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July Additional Species of Management Concern Lake Sturgeon Life History and Biology In Alberta, lake sturgeon are found in the North Saskatchewan, Lower Red Deer, Lower Bow, Lower Oldman and South Saskatchewan rivers, but are common only in the South Saskatchewan River upstream to the junction of the Bow and Oldman rivers (Nelson and Paetz 1992). The population in the North Saskatchewan River is estimated at 1, individuals (McLeod et al. 1999). Lake sturgeon are bottom-dwelling fish that occur in lakes and large rivers, at depths generally between 5-10 m (DFO 2006). The species feeds primarily on benthic organisms such as clams, snails, crayfishes, insect larvae, fish or fish eggs and algae or plant material. They may also feed on zooplankton in the water column or insects at the water surface (DFO 2006, Nelson and Paetz 1992). Migratory movements are typically associated with spawning and can be up to 270 km (McLeod et al. 1999). Recently, one individual within the North Saskatchewan River was recorded (i.e., via telemetry) to have completed a round trip spawning migration from Edmonton to the approximate area of the Saskatchewan border (Watkins pers. comm.). In general, optimal spawning habitat is found in high-gradient reaches of large rivers with current velocities between m/s and the presence of cobble and gravel (Peterson et al. 2007). Lake sturgeon typically migrates back downstream as soon as spawning has been concluded (Peterson et al. 2007). Lake sturgeon spawn in the spring, generally from early May to late June when water temperatures reach 13 C to 18 C (Peterson et al. 2007). Spawning occurs in areas of fast-flowing water or rapids over clay, sand, gravel and boulders. Lake sturgeon eggs take between 8 to 14 days to hatch under natural conditions depending on water temperature. The sticky eggs are scattered and adhere to rocks and logs. After hatching, the larvae remain in interstitial spaces in gravel or in bedrock cracks for at least 3 to 5 days before they float downstream (Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recovery Team 2011). The young feed on their yolk sacs for about 2 weeks and then start to feed on small benthic food items (Scott and Crossman 1973). Recent tagging programs completed in the North Saskatchewan River have identified important habitat between the towns of Devon and Fort Saskatchewan (McLeod et al. 1999). In this area alone, there are three Class A sections of the North Saskatchewan River within 30 km downstream (i.e., the closest of which occur approximately 20 km downstream) from the proposed pipeline corridor (AESRD 2013a). Page 4-29

30 These designations are in place because the areas are known to provide critical habitats for lake sturgeon. Lake sturgeon are large, slow-growing fish that reach sexual maturity late in life (14 to 33 years of age) and only spawn only every 4 to 5 years. In the North Saskatchewan River, they can live to at least 62 years of age and grow to 1.88 m in TL and an estimated 41 kg (Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recovery Team 2011). These biological characteristics make them particularly susceptible to population declines and populations do not recover quickly. Populations are sensitive to overharvest and habitat degradation. Adult lake sturgeon have few predators other than humans and juvenile sturgeons are susceptible as prey food to other fish including northern pike and walleye (Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recovery Team 2011). Historically, commercial fishing contributed to declines in sturgeon populations to levels from which they have never fully recovered. The construction of dams has resulted in changes to river flow regimes, loss and fragmentation of lake sturgeon habitat and may increase fish mortality through entrainment in turbines. Lake sturgeon habitat has also been degraded as a result of poor land use and agricultural practices. Other threats to lake sturgeon and their habitat include water use, pollutants, poaching and the introduction of non-native species (ASRD 2002, DFO 2006, Nelson and Paetz 1992, Scott and Crossman 1973) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of lake sturgeon previously captured at watercourse crossing locations along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watershed are presented below (Table 4.28). TABLE 4.28 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF LAKE STURGEON WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Lake sturgeon AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July Sauger Life History and Biology In Alberta, sauger are known to occur in the North Saskatchewan, Red Deer, Bow, Oldman, St. Mary, South Saskatchewan and Milk rivers (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Sauger are very similar in appearance to walleye, so much that they are often confused for younger, smaller species of walleye. Sauger are golden olive on the back and have a silver-yellow side with a white underside (ASRD 2010b). The subtle differences in appearances are the first dorsal fin is clear with definitive spotting, the lower lobe on the caudal fin is lacking a white tip and the back has three to four saddles compared to the five to seven saddles found on a walleye (Scott and Crossman 1973). Sauger also have a very similar diet as walleye which typically includes small fishes, leeches and insects (ASRD 2010b). Sauger have evolved both physiologically and behaviourally to effectively exploit low light, nocturnal and turbid conditions, which results in systems that have deeper, darker water and range in depths between 3-35 m (Bozek et al. 2011). In general, they prefer main channel rivers that are characterized by high turbidity, very deep water and low channel slope as their eyesight has adapted to these conditions (Bozek et al. 2011). Sauger are the most migratory of all the percid fishes and can migrate between km during spawning (Bozek et al. 2011). Spawning occurs generally between the last week of May and the first week of June. During this time, the water temperature is between 4ºC to 6ºC. The spawning occurs on a gravel or rubble shoal in large, turbid lakes or rivers at a depth of m where females lay 9,000 to 100,000 eggs. Incubation occurs between 25 to 29 days (Scott and Crossman 1973). Page 4-30

31 Very little is known about this species but it is believed that their narrow range of habitat preference for systems that have high suspended sediments, deep water and specific thermal conditions contribute to an overall lack of fish capture and habitat information. It is estimated that populations occupy 10% of all available freshwater habitat, including rivers, lakes and reservoirs (Bozek et al. 2011). Sauger populations are believed to be declining due to habitat fragmentation Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of sauger previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watershed are presented below (Table 4.29). TABLE 4.29 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF SAUGER WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Sauger AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July Spoonhead Sculpin Life History and Biology Spoonhead sculpin are primarily a stream species. However, in Alberta, they are known to occur in several river systems including the Slave, Peace, Athabasca, North Saskatchewan, Upper Red Deer, Oldman and Bow river drainages (Nelson and Paetz 1992). This species commonly occurs in muddy rivers, but typically requires clean, rocky or gravel bottomed streams for reproduction (Roberts 1988). The spoonhead sculpin has a flat, wide head. It has a large preopercular spine curving upwards and inwards and it also has 2 touching dorsal fins with the second dorsal ray having fin rays. Spoonhead sculpin diet consists of aquatic invertebrates, such as stoneflies, but they are primary food sources for many larger fish including trout species, northern pike, burbot and walleye (Roberts 1988). The spawning season for spoonhead sculpin falls in the spring, usually in April or May along creek bottoms and in the margins of rivers. The male will defend a spawning site, usually a rock, and courted females will attach 280-1,200 adhesive eggs to the underside of that rock. The male will remain at the site, guarding the eggs for 2 to 3 weeks until they hatch (Nelson and Paetz 1992). In Alberta, spoonhead sculpin population trends and numbers are not well known and there is an overall general lack of knowledge about their life history and species-specific habitat requirements. However, since they are not targeted by anglers, their population concerns may reflect limits to their environmental surroundings (i.e., substrate, clean rivers and streams) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of spoonhead sculpin previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.30). Page 4-31

32 TABLE 4.30 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF SPOONHEAD SCULPIN WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) Spoonhead sculpin AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-119 Carrot Creek Lower McLeod River September 15 to July 31 AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River September 15 to July 31 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-137 Little Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-138 Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 Source: FWMIS Northern Redbelly Dace Life History and Biology Northern redbelly dace are found in Alberta in boggy lakes, creeks, streams and major river drainages including the Hay, Peace, Athabasca, North Saskatchewan, Oldman, South Saskatchewan and Milk rivers (Nelson and Paetz 1992). They have a specific preference for sluggish, spring-fed streams with abundant vegetation and woody debris. Preferable habitat would be described as a series of beaver ponds filled with a constant supply of cool groundwater. Another critical component of their habitat requirements is the exclusion of large, predatory fish (Stasiak 2006). They feed primarily on algae and zooplankton, but are also known to eat aquatic insects and small animals taken from the water column (Scott and Crossman 1973). Northern redbelly dace have two dark lateral bands running down their body and males typically have bright red, yellow or red and yellow patterns below the dual dark bands. These markings are more vivid during breeding season (Stasiak 2006). Other key physical features include an oblique terminal mouth and the origin of their dorsal fin is behind the origin of their pelvic fins (Stasiak 2006). Spawning occurs from July to August for the northern redbelly dace, although spawning depends on photoperiod and temperature and can occur as early as May. The females, accompanied by one or more males, would dart from one algae-mass to another. Upon diving into an algae-mass, the spawning group begins to struggle against the algae. The eggs are released, fertilized and deposited into the algae-mass. The eggs hatch within 8 to 10 days when the water is at a temperature of 21 C to 26 C (Scott and Crossman 1973). The northern redbelly dace become mature at 1 year and have a maximum lifespan of 6 to 8 years (Joynt and Sullivan 2003). Northern redbelly dace are closely related to finescale dace and while little genetic research has been done on the different populations of pure northern redbelly dace, they are sometimes known to hybridize (Stasiak 2006). The hybrid populations appears to be most prevalent in habitats that are less ideal for finescale dace and studies have shown that ideal habitats can carry both populations in abundance with no hybrids present (Stasiak 2006). Genetic comparisons of northern redbelly dace populations would be key in understanding their evolutionary implications. Other major threats to northern redbelly dace include loss, modification and fragmentation of habitat resulting in overall loss of terrestrial biodiversity. Their conservation is expected to depend on the maintenance and protection of naturally spring-fed lakes and streams, particularly if beaver activity is present Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of northern redbelly dace previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.31). Page 4-32

33 TABLE 4.31 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF NORTHERN REDBELLY DACE WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) Northern redbelly dace AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan September 16 to July 30 River Northern redbelly dace (cont d) AB-132 and AB-136 Bench Creek Lower McLeod September 1 to July15 Source: FWMIS Brown Trout Life History and Biology Brown trout are golden-brown or olive-coloured on both the lateral and dorsal sides and are the only salmonids with large black or brown dots with some pink or red spots (Nelson and Paetz 1992). The species is piscivorous, however, will also feed on a variety of other organisms, including terrestrial insects and their larvae, crayfish, molluscs, salamanders and frogs (Scott and Crossman 1973). Brown trout are active night feeders and periodically feed in the winter on frazil ice (Raleigh et al. 1986). Individuals reach sexual maturity around 2 to 3 years, but can be mature as early as their first year or as late as 8 years (Raleigh et al. 1986). Brown trout are primarily stream spawners and spawn in late autumn to early winter where they construct redds in oxygen rich habitat when water temperatures are between 7 C and 10 C (Joynt and Sullivan 2003, Scott and Crossman 1973). Adults prefer to inhabit slower-moving waters in the lower reaches of streams and generally select areas where they can lie in deep pools or under the protective covering of banks or snags (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Optimal brown trout habitat is characterized by clear, cool to cold water with clean substrate in riffle-run areas (Raleigh et al. 1986). Cunjak and Power (1986) found that canopy cover is important in brown trout streams during the winter season. Their study showed that most aggregations of brown trout selected areas with slow-moving water and overhead cover in winter time, as opposed to the summer, where cover is less important than feeding in shallow, faster-moving water where food is most available (Cunjak and Power 1986). Brown trout are an exotic fish species in Alberta (ASRD 2010a), meaning that they are not native to this province. They have been successfully introduced throughout much of Western Alberta in the Athabasca, North Saskatchewan, Red Deer, Bow and Oldman River drainages with some access to the North Fort Milk River (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Since their first introduction into the province in the early 1900s, they have been managed as sportfish species. The introduction of brown trout is believed to be responsible for the decline of some native trout and char species (Nelson and Paetz 1992) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of brown trout previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.32). Page 4-33

34 TABLE 4.32 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF BROWN TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) Brown trout AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan September 16 to July 30 River AB-111 Little Brule Creek Pembina September 1 to June 30 Source: FWMIS Brook Trout Life History and Biology Brook trout are an olive-green colour with an exceptionally long upper jaw line. Their sides have red or pink spots with blue halos. They are frequently found in cool streams, beaver ponds and clear, shallow lakes (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Optimal DO concentrations are determined to be greater than 7 mg/l at temperatures less than 15 C (Raleigh 1982). Brook trout are sometimes known to hybridize with bull trout, brown trout and lake trout in Alberta (Nelson and Paetz 1992, Raleigh 1982). Spawning occurs between September and November over gravel beds in shallow streams or shallow areas of lakes. However, depending on the region, spawning can occur in late summer in cooler parts of the region or in early winter in warmer parts of the region. Similar to rainbow trout and cutthroat trout, areas in streams and ponds of cool ground water upwelling are highly preferable (Raleigh 1982). Optimal habitat conditions are characterized by silt-free, rocky substrate in riffle-run areas (Raleigh 1982). Cunjak and Power (1986) found that brook trout occupy deep pools, slow reaches of run and stream margins in the winter with abundant overhanging vegetation for cover. Juvenile brook trout typically occupied shallower depths with lower velocities in the winter whereas adult brook trout were able to occupy positions in deeper, faster water (Cunjak and Power 1986). Brook trout are not native to Alberta, but have been successfully introduced to the western half of the province, including the Peace, Athabasca, North Saskatchewan, Red Deer, Bow and Oldman River drainages. They have also been introduced into Pine Lake and Wood Buffalo National Park. Reductions in the original ranges have resulted from environmental changes, pollutions, siltation and stream warming from deforestation (Raleigh 1982) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of brook trout previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.33). TABLE 4.33 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF BROOK TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Brook trout AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July 30 AB-66 Pembina River Pembina September 1 to June 30 AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-137 Little Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-155 Ponoka Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 Page 4-34

35 TABLE 4.33 Cont'd Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) Brook trout (cont d) AB-157 Roundcroft Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-162 Sandstone Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-164 Hunt Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-167 Trail Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-168 Unnamed Tributary to Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 Athabasca River at RK AB-180 Hardisty Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 Source: FWMIS Rainbow Trout (Introduced Populations) Life History and Biology Athabasca rainbow trout have been subject to the supplementation of hatchery reared rainbow trout (introduced populations) since the early 1920s from a variety of sources for sportfishing reasons (ASRD and ACA 2009a). The level of genetic difference amongst populations is a critical component for the conservation of Athabasca rainbow trout, but is not an area of analysis that is well-studied. However, there are some biological differences between native Athabasca River and introduced populations of rainbow trout that are well known (ASRD and ACA 2009a). As their name suggests, rainbow trout (introduced populations) are blue-green dorsally and silvery, yellow and green laterally. They are covered in black spots, and males carry a reddish lateral band during spawning. The tips of the pelvic, anal and dorsal fins are orange and yellow in colour (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Rainbow trout are a coolwater species that prefer temperatures below 20 C, but can withstand temperatures of 24 C. Overhead cover (large, woody debris and riparian vegetation) are important components to good habitat for rainbow trout in small streams and in riffles, runs, glides and pools in both rivers and streams (McPhail 2007). Introduced populations of rainbow trout are known to spawn in late spring and early summer, earlier than spawning of Athabasca rainbow trout populations. Spawning occurs when temperatures are between 10 C and 15 C. Spawning occurs in small tributaries or in inlets and outlets to lakes over fine gravel and riffles (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Hybridization and genetic introgression between Athabasca and genetic rainbow trout populations has been a recognized problem in North America for some time. There is currently no approach for the management of hybrid species and conserving the integrity of the native genome (ASRD and ACA 2009a). Currently, rainbow trout (introduced populations) are managed as a sportfish species in Alberta and are provincially recognized as Secure (ASRD 2010a) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of rainbow trout (introduced populations) previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.34). Page 4-35

36 TABLE 4.34 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF RAINBOW TROUT (INTRODUCED POPULATIONS) WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River September 1 to June 30 AB-129 Wolf Creek 1 Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-131 McLeod River 1 Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-164 Hunt Creek 1 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-167 Trail Creek 1 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-180 Hardisty Creek 1 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-188 Maskuta Creek 1 Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Rainbow trout (introduced populations) Source: FWMIS 2013 Note: 1 Indicates that rainbow trout (introduced populations) are expected to occur instead of Athabasca River rainbow trout (Sterling pers. comm.) Cutthroat Trout Life History and Biology In Alberta, westslope cutthroat trout are native to the Bow and South Saskatchewan River drainages, outside of the Fish and Fish Habitat RSA. However, introduced populations of cutthroat trout (i.e., nonnative) have been stocked into the Athabasca, North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River drainages (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Cutthroat trout spawning typically occurs in early spring, but can occur as early as February or as late as August, depending on temperatures. In general, spawning takes place in small, low gradient streams with clear, cold water and silt-free, rocky substrate (ASRD and ACA 2006, Hickman and Raleigh 1982). Optimal cutthroat trout habitat has approximately 1:1 pool to riffle ratio with some areas of slow-moving water and plenty of cover including undercut banks, riparian vegetation, instream objects and pool depth (ASRD and ACA 2006, Hickman and Raleigh 1982). Their preferred temperature is between 9 C and 12 C, which makes cutthroat trout a superior competitor at high elevation streams (ASRD and ACA 2006). Similar to introduced populations of rainbow trout, non-native cutthroat trout are listed as Secure in Alberta (ASRD 2010a) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of cutthroat trout (introduced populations) previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watershed are presented below (Table 4.35). TABLE 4.35 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF CUTTHROAT TROUT WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Cutthroat trout AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July 30 Page 4-36

37 4.4.9 Mountain Whitefish Life History and Biology Mountain whitefish are native to much of Western North America. In Alberta, they occur throughout much of the Oldman, Bow, Red Deer, North Saskatchewan, Athabasca and Peace River basins. Mountain whitefish are most common in the western half of the province in the aforementioned drainages and are known to be rare in the Lower Athabasca and Peace River drainages (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Within watercourses along the eastern slopes of Alberta, this species typically comprises a substantial portion of the annual angler harvest (IEC Beak Consultants Ltd. 1985, Nelson and Paetz 1992). While spawning may occur in the same locations as summer foraging (MacAfee 1966), most mountain whitefish populations migrate to common spawning locations (McPhail and Troffe 1998). It is reported that mountain whitefish spawning is triggered when water temperatures drop below 10 C and peak when temperatures fall to 6 C (McPhail and Troffe 2001), however, the timing of spawning can vary depending on many geographic or environmental influences. Mountain whitefish congregate in large numbers prior to spawning. Run and pool habitats are preferred (Eisler and Popowich 2013), specifically those deeper than 0.5 m. In rivers, eggs are broadcast and fertilized in the water column and dispersed downstream by current before settling into interstitial spaces of unembedded gravel, cobble and/or boulder substrate. Newly emerged fry may use protected side pools, while in summer and early fall they generally inhabit side channel areas (Northcote and Ennis 1994 in Meyer et al. 2009). Mountain whitefish, although managed as sportfish, were historically considered a trash fish by many anglers for much of the 20th century (Brown 2010). The species is known to be sensitive to habitat alterations (Erman 1973, Northcote and Ennis 1994 and Paragamian 2002 in Meyer et al. 2009), having population declines attributed, in some instances, to anthropogenic development (Meyer et al. 2009). Species presence, in some instances, has been shown to be strongly correlated to channel widths exceeding 10 m (Meyer et al. 2009). Mountain whitefish are recognized, provincially, as Secure (ASRD 2010a) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of mountain whitefish previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.36). TABLE 4.36 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF MOUNTAIN WHITEFISH WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Mountain whitefish AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July 30 AB-66 Pembina River Pembina September 1 to June 30 AB-119 Carrot Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 AB-132 and AB-136 Bench Creek Lower McLeod September 1 to July15 AB-137 Little Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-138 Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River September 1 to July 15 AB-180 Hardisty Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River September 1 to July 15 Page 4-37

38 Yellow Perch Life History and Biology In Alberta, yellow perch are found in the Peace, Slave, Athabasca, Beaver, North Saskatchewan, Upper Battle, Red Deer, Bow and Oldman River drainages (Nelson and Patez 1992). Yellow perch are golden-yellow dorsally and laterally, but sometimes take on an olive colour dorsally. They have a dark blotch on the hind end of the spinous dorsal fin. Yellow perch are common in ponds, lakes and slow-moving streams and are found in loose pools. They begin spawning migrations from deep waters into tributaries or shallow lakes with low velocity zones during the months of April to June, when water temperatures are between 7 C and 13 C (Krieger et al. 1983). Spawning occurs in preferable submerged vegetation, but may also take place on rock, sand and gravel if instream vegetation is not available (Krieger et al. 1983). In general, yellow perch prefer pool and slow-water areas with moderate amounts of vegetation. The preferred temperature for adult and juvenile yellow perch is between 17.6 C and 25.0 C (Krieger et al. 1983). Yellow perch occur in loose schools and as a result, are typically the most common fish targeted in terms of number of fish caught and total time spent angling (Nelson and Paetz 1992) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of yellow perch previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.37). TABLE 4.37 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF YELLOW PERCH WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Yellow perch AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July 30 AB-66 Pembina River Pembina September 1 to June 30 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June Mooneye Life History and Biology In Alberta, mooneye are predominantly known to occur in the North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River drainages. Mooneye are not as abundant throughout Alberta, like goldeye are, but can be abundant locally in the areas where they are known to occur. They often occur with goldeye and look similar to goldeye, but have a silver iris and appear to be more brown and green dorsally than silvery-blue goldeye (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Mooneye are known to prefer more clean and clear water when compared to goldeye. In general, mooneye prefer slow-moving, silt-free water at depths between 2-10 m (Scott and Crossman 1973), spawning, typically, during the months of April and May in rivers over silty and sandy substrates (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Similar to goldeye, mooneye migrate upstream to spawn and return downstream again in the fall. Long migrations also occur upstream to occupy feeding sites. Juveniles do not move upstream until about the age of 3 or 4 (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Mooneye are often erroneously identified as large goldeye and are targeted accidentally by anglers in the pursuit of goldeye (Scott and Crossman 1973). Page 4-38

39 Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of mooneye previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watershed are presented below (Table 4.38). TABLE 4.38 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF MOONEYE WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Mooneye AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July Goldeye Life History and Biology In Alberta, goldeye are found predominantly in the Peace, Athabasca, North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River drainages. The Peace-Athabasca delta is a common location for goldeye capture as it is a well-known spawning location (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Goldeye retains its name from its bright yellow iris; a characteristic that allows it to be nocturnal and reflect light (Scott and Crossman 1973). Relatively few details are known about the specific habitat requirements of goldeye. They are often misidentified and reliable lengths and weights are rarely documented in Alberta (Nelson and Paetz 1992). Goldeye seem to prefer lakes and rivers that are highly turbid with calm backwaters for feeding (Scott and Crossman 1973). Their bright yellow eyes have created an adaptation for dim light conditions which supports their habitat preference for turbid and muddy waters (Scott and Crossman 1973). Goldeye are known to spawn in the spring in slow-moving water over rocky substrates in lakes and rivers. After spawning, adult goldeye migrate back into rivers and occupy deep, quiet water areas near the inlets of tributary streams (McPhail 2007). Capture of goldeye is rare, but they remain vulnerable to heavy fishing pressure by anglers (Nelson and Paetz 1992) Edmonton to Hinton Segment Records of goldeye previously captured at watercourses along the proposed pipeline corridor within the respective watersheds are presented below (Table 4.39). TABLE 4.39 PREVIOUS RECORDS OF GOLDEYE WITHIN WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Goldeye AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Source: FWMIS 2013 Restricted Activity Period (AENV 2006a,b and AESRD 2013a) September 16 to July 30 AB-66 Pembina River Pembina September 1 to June 30 AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River September 1 to June 30 Page 4-39

40 5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION Results from the Aquatics FFP and of the Aquatics TEK collected during field studies for the Alberta component of the Project are provided below. Issues and concerns related to aquatic resources as well as proposed mitigation measures and/or response to those issues are included. Each Aboriginal community participated in comprehensive reviews of mitigation measures in the context of all the issues they had raised during the field study and follow-up review. 5.1 General Information A total of 202 potential crossings were identified along the proposed pipeline corridor within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment. Of these crossings, habitat use and potential was assessed during the FFP at 185 locations. Limited access permission or the availability of sufficient existing information at the remaining 17 locations precluded field surveys during the FFP. Results from crossings where field surveys were conducted, including a summary of fish-bearing crossings versus nonfish-bearing crossings and respective classifications, are presented below. A summary of information specific to each crossing assessed in the field is also provided in the Watercourse Crossing Summary Table (Appendix A), the Fish-Bearing Atlas (Appendix C) and the Nonfish-Bearing Atlases (Appendix D). Of the 185 crossings assessed during the FFP, 39 were visited in two seasons, 15 of which were sampled on three occasions and two were visited during each of the four FFP components. Throughout the FFP, 71 crossings were visited during the 2012 reconnaissance and inventory program, three crossings were visited during the 2012 fall spawning survey, 16 crossings were visited during the 2013 wintering habitat potential assessment, 138 crossings were assessed during the spring 2013 fisheries program and four crossings were visited during the fall 2013 spawning assessment. At one proposed crossing where site surveys were precluded by access limitations during 2012 and 2013 FFP components (i.e., Lobstick River) and at one proposed crossing where route realignment occurred after the field survey had been completed (i.e., North Saskatchewan River), sufficient existing data (AAR 2006) was available to enable appropriate crossing and mitigation recommendations. Atlas pages were also created for both of these fish-bearing sites (Appendix C), but were based exclusively on data collected in 2006 (AAR 2006). Insufficient existing site-specific information precluded the preparation of site atlas pages for the remaining 17 crossings not assessed during the FFP, although any historical data (where available) is provided for these sites in the Watercourse Crossing Summary Table (Appendix A). Habitat which was not assessed during the FFP and where insufficient existing information occurs was presumed to be fish-bearing for the purpose of construction planning. In addition, crossing recommendations (Section 6.0) for these locations were based on appropriate most preferred methods, but will be confirmed during supplemental studies. The interim crossing method and mitigation recommendations for these locations are included in the Watercourse Crossing Summary Table (Appendix A). During the FFP, habitat assessments were completed over the established minimum (100 m upstream to 300 m downstream of the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor) distance (LSA) at most crossings. A truncated LSA was assessed at six locations (i.e. five watercourses and one wetland) (Appendices C and D) because only partial access was provided in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline corridor or because of limiting field conditions. During supplemental studies (Section ), field crews will return to the watercourses (when appropriate access is provided) where a truncated LSA was used during the FFP. Results of the 2012 reconnaissance and inventory program and the spring 2013 fisheries program FFP components were used primarily to determine the sensitivity rankings for each proposed crossing investigated during the FFP (except for at the North Saskatchewan and Lobstick rivers). Results from the desktop review (i.e., where historical information was available), the fall 2012 spawning assessment, the 2013 wintering habitat potential survey and the fall 2013 spawning assessment components of the FFP were used to confirm fish habitat sensitivity assessments, where necessary. Sensitivity rankings were either High (as represented by a red indicator in the Fish-Bearing Atlas) or Low (as represented by a green indicator in the Fish-Bearing Atlas) for fish-bearing habitat (Table 3.6). Each LSA at nonfish-bearing habitat coincided with unsuitable habitat conditions indicating it was also of Low sensitivity. Page 5-1

41 5.2 Edmonton to Hinton Segment Summary of Watercourse Classifications Of the 185 potential fish habitats investigated during the FFP or where sufficient historical information exists, 74 crossings were confirmed to be of watercourses, 75 were determined to be of NCDs and 36 were confirmed to be of wetlands. It is important to note that 39 of the 74 watercourses also had wetland features in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline corridor s crossing (Appendix A). Of the 17 crossings which were not assessed during the FFP, 14 are presumed to be of watercourses and three are presumed to be of wetlands. Confirmation at these locations will occur during supplemental studies, however, these default classifications have been presumed for discussion purposes. No Class A watercourses are crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor. One Class B watercourse (i.e., Whitemud Creek) and 87 Class C watercourses are crossed (including presumed watercourses not visited during the FFP). Table 5.1 provides a summary of the classification of the 202 potential crossings of the proposed pipeline corridor along the Edmonton to Hinton Segment. TABLE 5.1 CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE 202 POTENTIAL CROSSINGS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Classification Total Number Class A 0 Class B 1 Class C 87 1 Class D 0 NCDs 75 1 Wetlands 39 1 Note: 1 Assumes that of the 17 sites not assessed during the FFP, 14 will be watercourses, 3 will be wetlands and none will be NCD. In general, one of three RAPs applies to most fish habitat crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor in the Edmonton to Hinton Segment, according to the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (i.e., for vehicle and equipment crossings) (GOA 2013b) and relevant COP maps (AENV 2006a,b, AESRD 2013a). The most common RAPs include: April 16 to June 30; September 1 to June 30, September 1 to July 15; and September 16 to July 30 (AENV 2006a,b, AESRD 2013a). The RAP for all watercourse crossings within the Lower, Middle and Upper North Saskatchewan and Sturgeon River watersheds is April 16 to June 30, except for the North Saskatchewan River which has a September 16 to July 30 RAP. Watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor in the Pembina River Watershed have a September 1 to June 30 RAP, except for Zeb-igler Creek which has an April 16 to June 30 RAP. Watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor in the Lower and Upper McLeod and Sturgeon River watersheds have a September 1 to July 15 RAP, except for the McLeod River which has a September 1 to June 30 RAP. Although 3 NCD and 4 wetlands were found to be fishbearing, none of these habitats provided suitable habitat for fish species of management concern, nor contained species of management concern and were not assigned a RAP during the FFP. The RAP of each proposed crossing (where applicable) is provided in the Watercourse Crossing Summary Table (Appendix A) and in either the Fish-Bearing or Nonfish-Bearing atlases (Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively) Fish-Bearing versus Nonfish- Bearing Habitat Of the 185 potential crossings assessed during the FFP or where suitable historic information exists, 56 were confirmed to be of fish-bearing habitat, including 49 watercourses, three NCD and four wetlands (Figure 5.1, Appendix C). A total of 129 crossings were confirmed to be of nonfish-bearing habitat (i.e., over the LSA investigated at each location), including 25 watercourses, 72 NCD and 32 wetlands (Figure 5.2, Appendix D). All 17 potential crossings not assessed during the FFP are presumed to be Page 5-2

42 fish-bearing based on previously documented fish information or by default and are included in Figure 5.1. Confirmation of fish presence at these locations will occur during supplemental studies. Fish were captured or observed during the FFP at many of the locations where previously documented fish presence existed. Fish were also captured at six locations where no previous fish information existed over any portion of the watercourse. This total includes one unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River at RK 310.8, where a suspected Athabasca rainbow trout was captured (Sterling pers. comm.). Fulton and Happy creeks were the only named watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment where no fish had been previously documented (FWMIS 2013) and where no fish were captured during the FFP. Species of management concern (i.e., including indicator species) were captured or observed at 16 watercourses during the FFP or by AAR (2006), including: the Pembina, Lobstick and McLeod rivers; Little Brule, Wolf, Maskuta, Hardisty, Trail, Roundcroft, Ponoka, Sundance, Little Sundance and Hunt creeks; the unnamed tributary to the McLeod River at RK 270.1; the unnamed tributary to Hunt Creek at RK 304.7; and the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River at RK Sampling did not occur during 2012 or 2013 FFP components within the LSA of the proposed pipeline corridor s crossings of the North Saskatchewan or Lobstick rivers or Sandstone Creek. Page 5-3

43 r eek er 43 O P Ath ab a Shiningbank Lake AB-155 AB-157 ( ( AB-177 ( ( AB-180 AB-188 ( ( AB-202 HINTON ( AB-143 AB-146 AB-162 ( ( AB-140 EDSON AB-128 AB-129 AB-137 ONOWAY AB-119 AB-114 AB-118 AB-113 ( RK 200 ( ( (. ( ( ( ( ( ( AB-111 AB-117 AB-126 ( ( ( Chip Lake AB-116 ( ( ( AB-101 AB-106 AB-103 AB-102 RK 150. ( ( ( ( ( AB-91 AB-92 AB-93 ( AB-82 AB P O Wabamun Lake AB-31 AB-33 AB-34 bi na em ek es Mod te C B razeau R iver tch ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE ECKVILLE City / Town / District Municipality Projection: NAD83 UTM Zone 11N. Routing: Baseline TMPL & Facilities: provided by KMC, 2012; Proposed Pipeline Corridor V6: provided by UPI, Aug. 23, 2013; Transportation: IHS Inc., 2013, BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2012 & Natural Resources Canada, 2012; Geopolitical Boundaries: Natural Resources Canada, 2003, AltaLIS, 2013, IHS Inc., 2011, BC FLNRO, 2007 & ESRI, 2005; First Nation Lands: Government of Canada, 2013, AltaLIS, 2010 & IHS Inc., 2011; Hydrology: Natural Resources Canada, 2007 & BC Crown Registry and Geographic Base Branch, 2008; Parks and Protected Areas: Natural Resources Canada, 2012, AltaLIS, 2012 & BC FLNRO, 2008; ATS Grid: AltaLIS, 2009; Edmonton TUC: Alberta Infrstructure, 2011; Canadian Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants, 2008; US Hillshade: ESRI, BEAUMONT P O LEDUC 21 P O Coal Lake This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 13 O P WETASKIWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA 2 O P Gull Lake 20 O P O P 43 ( Quesnel Red Deer Lake Hinton 16 ( Williams Lake Blue River 97 ( DATE TERA REF. SCALE PAGE SIZE December 2013 P O 1:900,000 DRAWN Edson Red Deer Calgary (1 (2 Kelowna (3 Hope USA _MAP_TERA_AQ_00345_REV0 12 Edmonton (2 Darfield Kamloops (2 Jasper Valemount MAP NUMBER LACOMBE RED DEER Grande Prairie 97 ( Prince George BLACKFALDS ALBERTA Dawson Creek 2A O P Vancouver (Burnaby) BENTLEY er Riv North S a ska ine P O an River ew Watershed Boundary 14 O P AB-12 AB RIMBEY dic Me Athabas Railway * Several potential crossings were not assessed during the FFP and are presumed to be habitat of High sensitivity by default. Confirmation of sensitivity and fish-bearing status at these locations will occur during supplemental studies. P O ghorn Creek Bi Highway Protected Area / Natural Area / Provincial Recreation Area / Wilderness Provincial Park / Conservancy Area AB-7 PONOKA 12 O P (1 Provincial Park er 20 O P 53 Habitat of Low Sensitivity for Species of Management Concern National Park 13 O P P O ( Indian Reserve / Métis Settlement AB-2 ( ( M id dl e N or t h S a s ka tc h e wa n R ive r Wat er s h e d Pigeon Lake Habitat of High Sensitivity for Species of Management Concern* FORT SASKATCHEWAN ( MILLET 22 Crimson Lake Provincial Park ( AB-14 CALMAR ( v h esk er R iv AB-17 ( ( 60 O P Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL). # * ( ( AB-16 Terminal Ri Maligne Lake SPRUCE GROVE # * Edmonton RK 0 RK 50. DEVON re Brazeau Lake 15 O P Lower North Saskatchewan River Watershed AB-15 U pp er N o r t h S a s ka tc h e wa n R ive r Wat er s h e d 40 O P AB-23 ( Battle Car d inal Riv er ( ( ( Reference Kilometre Post (RK) ED M O N T O N 43 O P 39 Brazeau Reservoir Sou t ( STONY PLAIN. R E D W A T E R Proposed Pipeline Corridor GIBBONS 28 O P ST. ALBERT AB-18 a Eagle Point ew Provincial t ch a k s North S a Park r ve Ri ( ( ver 38 O P BON ACCORD 2 O P AB-19 AB-21 AB-25 DRAYTON VALLEY arr a s JASPER NATIONAL PARK 93 O P. AB-35 ( ( ( ( ( ( 37 O P AB-20 AB-28 P O asper _MAP_TERA_AQ_00345_Rev0.mxd AB-60 RK 100 AB-36 er P Jasper ( ( AB-66 AB-83 AB-38 AB-44 AB-78 P O AB-163 U pp e r M c L e o d R i ve r Wat e rs h e d L eo d Ri AB-98 AB-37 AB r ve Talbot Lake ( ( ( 16 O P ( St u r ge on R ive r Wate r s he d Ri LEGAL MORINVILLE Mc 40 O P ( ( 32 O P i ver ( (.( ( ( P O AB-125 ( ( ( R 44 O P Pe m bin a R iv er Wat er s he d 43 R AB-176 RK 250 (. RK 300 AB-168 AB-141 bina Pe m Redwa ter r ive TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT 18 O P BARRHEAD 33 O P AB-124 AB O P AB-123 PROPOSED CROSSINGS OF FISH-BEARING HABITAT EDMONTON TO HINTON WESTLOCK Thunder Lake Provincial Park MAYERTHORPE b AB-167 AB-144 AB-153 AB-132 AB-136 AB-138 Em ock Lake ovincial Park Sundance Provincial Park At h a ba s c a R iv er Wate r s he d William A. Switzer Provincial Park L ow e r M c L e o d R iv e r Wat er s h e d FIGURE O P r ve Ri McL dm Ol r ive ar c s ca as b a eod River a n Cr ee k River B erland h At WHITECOURT Little Smoky Riv Carson-Pegasus Provincial Park 63 O P O P 32 O P Smoke Lake FOX CREEK Crooked Lake reek nr iv iv er S er C P O te R net o im uc t Iosegun Lake 43 AJS 10 CHECKED x17 TGG 20 PAGE SHEET 1 OF 1 REVISION DISCIPLINE DESIGN 30 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE 0 AQ TGG km 40

44 Pembina River ( ( ( Wabamun Lake RK 0 - RK 100 Val Quentin Sturgeon River Watershe d Alberta Beach Upp er No rth Saskatchewan Rive r Watershed OP 43 Mere Lake Spring Lake Longhurst Lake Rolling Heights Dawn Valley Villeneuve Middle North Saskatchewan Rive r Watershed OP Woodland Park OP 60 RK 40.. RK 30 OP 15 OP 28 Lower North Saskatchewan Rive r Watershed OP 21 Big Lake AB-42 Meso AB-41 AB-39 West Strathcona Science Provincial Park AB-32 AB-30 AB-27 AB-26 EDMONTON ( ( AB-22 ( RK 90 OP 16 Edmonton Crystal Meadows RK ( S P R U C E ") RK 0 ( ( ( ( ( (. RK 70 G R O V E RK 80. ( Wabamun Wabamun Lake Provincial Park RK 60 AB-40 AB-29 AB-24. ( Johnnys RK 50. Lake Jackfish Lake S T O N Y P L A I N Gladu Lake Lois Hole Centennial Provincial Park Sturgeon Rive r ST. ALBE RT Nort h S askatchewan R iver AB-11 OP 2 ( (. RK 20 AB-10 ( AB OP 14 ( AB-8 ( ( (. ( AB-1 AB-3 AB-4 AB-5 RK 10 AB-6 OP 16 SHER W OOD PA RK FIGURE 5.2 PROPOSED CROSSINGS OF NONFISH-BEARING HABITAT - EDMONTON TO HINTON TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT. Reference Kilometre Post (RK) #* ( ( 1 Village / Hamlet Terminal Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) Proposed Pipeline Corridor Habitat of Low Sensitivity for Species of Management Concern Highway Railway Watershed Boundary City / Town / District Municipality Indian Reserve / Métis Settlement Transportation and Utility Corridor (TUC) National Park Provincial Park Protected Area / Natural Area / Provincial Recreation Area / Wilderness Provincial Park / Conservancy Area _MAP_TERA_AQ_00346_Rev0_01.mxd L o b s ti c k Riv er (. RK RK RK 180 AB-112 AB-110 ( AB-108 OP 16 AB-107 (( ( (. RK 170 AB-115 AB-109 AB ( ( AB-104 Chip Lake Pembina River Round AB-85 AB-72 AB-71 Provincial Park Lake AB-100 AB-95 Wildwood AB-81 AB-86 AB-84 AB-73 AB-70 AB-94 AB-80 Evansburg AB-63 AB-62 RK 160 RK 150 RK 140 Entwistle (. (. ( (( (( ( (( ((( (. ( ( (((( (( (( ( (( (. ( ( ( RK 130 AB-96 AB-77 AB-69 AB-67 AB-87 AB-90 AB-64 AB-89 AB-61 AB-99 AB-97 AB-76 AB-74 AB-68 AB-88 AB-65 AB Pembina River Watershe d Lobstick River OP ( AB-59 AB-57 AB-58 ( (( AB-55 AB-54 Gainford (. AB-56 RK Isle Lake Fallis ( ( (( ((( (. ( AB-52 OP AB-53 AB-51 Betula Beach AB-50 South View AB-49 AB-48 Silver Sands AB-47 Upp er No rth Saskatchewan Rive r Watershed AB-46 ( ( RK AB-45 AB-43 AB ( ( AB-41 ( West Cove Sturgeon River Watershe d Wabamun Lake AB-40 OP 16. AB-39 RK Lac Ste Anne ( Wabamun Val Quentin Projection: NAD83 UTM Zone 11N. Routing: Baseline TMPL & Facilities: provided by KMC, 2012; Proposed Pipeline Corridor V6: provided by UPI, Aug. 23, 2013; Transportation: IHS Inc., 2013, BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2012 & Natural Resources Canada, 2012; Geopolitical Boundaries: Natural Resources Canada, 2003, AltaLIS, 2013, IHS Inc., 2011, BC FLNRO, 2007 & ESRI, 2005; First Nation Lands: Government of Canada, 2013, AltaLIS, 2010 & IHS Inc., 2011; Hydrology: Natural Resources Canada, 2007 & BC Crown Registry and Geographic Base Branch, 2008; Parks and Protected Areas: Natural Resources Canada, 2012, AltaLIS, 2012 & BC FLNRO, 2008; ATS Grid: AltaLIS, 2009; Edmonton TUC: Alberta Infrstructure, 2011; Canadian Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants, 2008; US Hillshade: ESRI, This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A ( Quesnel AJS ( 97 Prince George ( 16 Hope Grande Prairie ( 43 Hinton Blue River Williams Lake ( 97 Darfield Kamloops Vancouver (Burnaby) Dawson Creek Valemount TGG A L B E R T A Jasper Edson U S A km ( 1 Kelowna MAP NUMBER _MAP_TERA_AQ_00346_REV0_01 DATE ( 2 Edmonton Red Deer ( 3 ( 2 Calgary December SCALE 1:250,000 TERA REF. PAGE SIZE 11x17 PAGE REVISION SHEET 1 OF 2 DISCIPLINE DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE AQ TGG ( 2

45 RK RK 260 Peers Pem bin a Ri ve r Waters hed FIGURE 5.2 PROPOSED CROSSINGS OF NONFISH-BEARING HABITAT - EDMONTON TO HINTON Sundance Provincial Park Sucker Lake AB-142 RK 260 Marlboro Upper Mc Le od R iver Waters hed Annabel Lake McLeod River RK 250 Octopus Lake AB RK 240 AB-135 AB-134 AB-133 E D S O N M cleo d R Edson River i v er RK 230 AB-130 Pine Shadows Lower McLeod Rive r Waters hed RK 220 Wolf Creek Sang Lake RK AB AB-122 RK 200 AB-121 AB-120 Niton Junction RK 190 L obstick River AB-115 RK TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT Village / Hamlet Reference Kilometre Post (RK) Terminal Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) Proposed Pipeline Corridor Habitat of Low Sensitivity for Species of Management Concern Highway Railway Watershed Boundary City / Town / District Municipality Indian Reserve / Métis Settlement National Park Provincial Park Fickle Lake Protected Area / Natural Area / Provincial Recreation Area / Wilderness Provincial Park / Conservancy Area _MAP_TERA_AQ_00346_Rev0_02.mxd Brûlé Mines Brûlé RK RK AB-196 AB-197 AB-198 AB-199 RK 339 Jarvis Lake AB-191 AB-192 AB William A. Switzer Provincial Park AB-200 AB-201 Peppers Lake Entrance AB-187 AB-194 AB-195 AB-184 AB-185 RK 330 AB-189 AB-190 AB-183 AB AB-182 AB H I N T O N Athabasca River Watersh ed AB-179 AB-178 RK 320 AB-166 RK AB-175 AB-165 AB-174 AB-173 AB-169 AB-170 AB-171 AB Athabasca River RK 300 AB-161 AB RK 290 Obed AB-151 AB-154 AB-152 AB-158 AB-156 AB AB-149 AB-148 AB Obed Lake AB-147 Obed Lake Provincial Park RK 280 AB-145 Mcleod River Upper McL eod Ri ver Waters hed Sucker Lake RK 270 AB RK 260 Fickle Lake Sundance Provincial Park Marlboro Annabel Lake Projection: NAD83 UTM Zone 11N. Routing: Baseline TMPL & Facilities: provided by KMC, 2012; Proposed Pipeline Corridor V6: provided by UPI, Aug. 23, 2013; Transportation: IHS Inc., 2013, BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2012 & Natural Resources Canada, 2012; Geopolitical Boundaries: Natural Resources Canada, 2003, AltaLIS, 2013, IHS Inc., 2011, BC FLNRO, 2007 & ESRI, 2005; First Nation Lands: Government of Canada, 2013, AltaLIS, 2010 & IHS Inc., 2011; Hydrology: Natural Resources Canada, 2007 & BC Crown Registry and Geographic Base Branch, 2008; Parks and Protected Areas: Natural Resources Canada, 2012, AltaLIS, 2012 & BC FLNRO, 2008; ATS Grid: AltaLIS, 2009; Edmonton TUC: Alberta Infrstructure, 2011; Canadian Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants, 2008; US Hillshade: ESRI, This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A Quesnel Vancouver (Burnaby) AJS 97 Prince George Williams Lake Dawson Creek 16 Valemount Blue River 97 Kamloops Hope Hinton Darfield TGG Grande Prairie 43 A L B E R T A Jasper Edson US A km ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE 1 Kelowna MAP NUMBER _MAP_TERA_AQ_00346_REV0_02 DATE 2 Edmonton Red Deer 3 2 Calgary December SCALE 1:250,000 TERA REF. PAGE SIZE 11x17 PAGE REVISION SHEET 2 OF 2 DISCIPLINE DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN AQ TGG 2

46 5.2.3 Sensitivity Ranking of Fish-Bearing Watercourses Of the 185 crossings of potential fish habitat assessed during the FFP or where sufficient historical information exists, 157 were determined to occur at sites of Low sensitivity for species of management concern. This total includes all 129 crossings of nonfish-bearing habitat and 28 crossings of fish-bearing habitat (Table 5.2). Limiting parameters affecting habitat potential ratings for species of management concern included (among others): insufficient depth or flow; unsuitable substrate composition; lack of channel complexity and fish cover; undefined or inconsistent channel definition; unsuitable water quality (e.g., DO or ph); or a lack of connectivity to known fish habitat as observed during the FFP. Twenty-eight of 56 proposed crossings of fish-bearing habitat were confirmed during the FFP as being at sites with fish habitat of High sensitivity for species of management concern (Table 5.2, Appendix C). These resulted where fish capture or observation included species of management concern (i.e., sportfish and/or provincially, COSEWIC or federally-listed) and/or where the habitat potential for species of management concern of two or more fish life stages (i.e., of rearing, spawning and wintering) were rated as Moderate-High or High. For the two watercourses which were not assessed during the FFP components occurring in 2013, but for which sufficient habitat potential information exists at the proposed pipeline corridor (i.e., the North Saskatchewan and Lobstick rivers), High fish habitat sensitivity ratings were assumed (Appendix A). At Sandstone Creek, where a species of management concern has been previously captured (i.e., Athabasca rainbow trout), a High fish habitat sensitivity rating was also assumed (Appendix A). A High habitat sensitivity rating and fish-bearing designation was also assumed for the remaining 16 sites which were not assessed during the FFP, since insufficient historical site-specific data occurs (e.g., Mill Creek) and fish presence has not been previously documented. In these instances, fish absence and unsuitable habitat conditions was not presumed. However, these assumed ratings are subject to change pending results of supplemental studies (Section ). Habitat of High sensitivity for species of management concern was not confirmed at any crossings of the proposed pipeline corridor within the Lower and Upper North Saskatchewan or Sturgeon River Watersheds. However, the proposed crossing of Mill Creek (i.e., located within the Upper North Saskatchewan River Watershed) was not assessed during the FFP, but is fish-bearing (FWMIS 2013). Confirmation of High fish habitat sensitivity ratings for species of management concern may occur during supplemental studies. In the Middle North Saskatchewan River Watershed, crossings of the Blackmud and Whitemud creeks, as well as the North Saskatchewan River, were of High sensitivity fish habitat. Blackmud Creek provides Moderate-High habitat potential for burbot spawning and rearing, while Whitemud Creek is a provincially designated high sensitivity Class B watercourse (as defined by GOA 2013a). Habitat within the North Saskatchewan River is used by various species (and all life stages) of management concern year-round. The proposed crossing of an unnamed tributary to the North Saskatchewan River at RK 36.9 is fish-bearing (FWMIS 2013), but was not assessed during the FFP. Confirmation of High fish habitat sensitivity ratings may occur during supplemental studies. In the Pembina River Watershed, crossings of Brule and Little Brule creeks and the Pembina and Lobstick rivers occur at High sensitivity habitat. Habitat in Brule Creek provides Moderate-High potential for northern redbelly dace spawning and rearing. Habitat in Little Brule Creek and the Pembina River support indicator species captured or observed during the FFP or during previously documented inventories. Numerous juvenile (i.e., < 2 years of age) Arctic grayling were captured at the proposed pipeline corridor s crossing of Little Brule Creek and conditions in the vicinity suggested that these fish had successfully wintered in the impounded habitat. The observation of juvenile Arctic grayling in Little Brule Creek in 2013 is also noteworthy since the timing of the species re-introduction to this watercourse (i.e., 2009) suggests that these juvenile fish resulted from spawning that had occurred subsequently (Hildebrandt pers. comm.). It is likely that spawning occurred near the proposed pipeline corridor. Given limiting conditions during the FFP, active fish sampling (i.e., via electrofishing) was not attempted in the Pembina River. Instead, a snorkel survey was conducted during the 2012 spawning survey component of the FFP to delineate potential spawning activity of fall spawning species of management concern (e.g., mountain whitefish). Results of the snorkel survey at the Pembina River are provided below. Although not assessed during the 2013 FFP components, data from AAR (2006) at the proposed pipeline corridor s crossing of the Lobstick River suggests that species of management concern (e.g., northern Page 5-7

47 pike) occur at least seasonally and suitable spawning habitat for this species occurs within the Fish and Fish Habitat LSA. A High fish habitat sensitivity rating has been assumed for this watercourse. The proposed crossing of an unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK is also of fish-bearing (FWMIS 2013) habitat, but it was not assessed during the FFP. Confirmation of High fish habitat sensitivity ratings in these instances are expected occur during supplemental studies. In the Lower McLeod River Watershed, proposed crossings at the McLeod River, Carrot, Wolf and Bench creeks (i.e., both proposed crossings), as well as the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK 198.8, the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK and the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK 202.8, coincide with High sensitivity fish habitat. Each of the unnamed tributaries to January Creek listed above provide Moderate-High or High habitat potential for species of management concern, specifically for northern redbelly dace. Proposed crossings at Carrot, Wolf and Bench creeks, as well as the McLeod River, all have High sensitivity fish habitat and species of management concern are known to occur. Similar to the Pembina River, a snorkel survey was conducted at Wolf Creek and the McLeod River during the 2012 spawning survey to supplement fish habitat use information at these sites. The results of the spawning survey at Wolf Creek and the McLeod River are documented in the subsection below. In the Upper McLeod River Watershed, proposed crossings of Little Sundance and Sundance creeks as well as an unnamed tributary to the McLeod River at RK occurred at High sensitivity fish habitat. Each of these watercourses provide suitable habitat for, and contain, species of management concern (e.g., Arctic grayling or brook trout). The proposed crossing of an unnamed tributary to the McLeod River at RK is fish-bearing (FWMIS 2013), but was not assessed during the FFP. Confirmation of High fish habitat sensitivity ratings may occur during supplemental studies. In the Athabasca River Watershed, proposed crossings at Rooster, Ponoka, Roundcroft, Cache Percotte, Hunt, Trail, Hardisty and Maskuta creeks, as well as an unnamed tributary to Hunt Creek at RK and an unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River at RK 310.8, occur at High sensitivity habitat. Each of these watercourses provide suitable habitat for, and contain, species of management concern (e.g., Athabasca rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, bull trout and/or brook trout). In addition, Sandstone Creek is known to support Athabasca rainbow trout and brook trout (FWMIS 2013). Although it was not assessed during the FFP, a High habitat sensitivity rating was assumed for this watercourse. TABLE 5.2 SENSITIVITY RANKING FOR CROSSINGS OF FISH-BEARING HABITAT ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Fish Habitat Sensitivity Rating Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Name Watershed Low (Green) AB-2 Goldbar Creek Lower North Saskatchewan River AB-16 Unnamed Wetland at Sturgeon River RK 40.5 AB-17 Unnamed NCD at RK 41.7 Sturgeon River AB-18 Dog Creek Lower North Saskatchewan River AB-19 Atim Creek Sturgeon River AB-20 Unnamed Tributary to Sturgeon River Atim Creek at RK 64.2 AB-21 Unnamed Tributary to Sturgeon River Atim Creek at RK 65.5 AB-25 Kilini Creek Sturgeon River AB-28 Unnamed Wetland at RK 85.0 Sturgeon River AB-34 Unnamed Tributary to Kilini Creek at RK 91.1 Upper North Saskatchewan River Page 5-8

48 TABLE 5.2 Cont'd Fish Habitat Sensitivity Rating Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Name Low (Green) (cont d) AB-44 Unnamed Tributary to Wabamun Lake at RK AB-60 Unnamed Tributary to Isle Lake at RK Watershed Upper North Saskatchewan River Sturgeon River AB-78 Zeb-igler Creek Pembina River AB-79 Unnamed Wetland at Pembina River RK AB-92 Unnamed Tributary to Pembina River Chip Lake at RK AB-93 Unnamed Tributary to Pembina River Chip Lake at RK AB-98 Unnamed Tributary to Pembina River Chip Lake at RK AB-103 Unnamed NCD at Pembina River RK AB-106 Unnamed Tributary to Pembina River Chip Lake at RK AB-113 Unnamed NCD at Pembina River RK AB-114 Unnamed Tributary to Pembina River Little Brule Creek at RK AB-118 Unnamed Tributary to Pembina River Lobstick River at RK AB-123 Unnamed Tributary to Lower McLeod River January Creek at RK AB-128 January Creek Lower McLeod River AB-140 Unnamed Tributary to Upper McLeod River McLeod River at RK AB-143 Unnamed Tributary to Upper McLeod River McLeod River at RK AB-146 Unnamed Wetland at Upper McLeod River RK AB-202 Unnamed Tributary to Athabasca River Maskuta Creek at RK High* (Red) AB-12 Blackmud Creek Middle North Saskatchewan River AB-13 Whitemud Creek Middle North Saskatchewan River AB-14 North Saskatchewan River 1 Middle North Saskatchewan River AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River AB-111 Little Brule Creek Pembina River AB-116 Brule Creek Pembina River AB-117 Lobstick River 1 Pembina River AB-119 Carrot Creek Lower McLeod River AB-124 Unnamed Tributary to Lower McLeod River Carrot Creek at RK AB-125 Unnamed Tributary to Lower McLeod River January Creek at RK AB-126 Unnamed Tributary to Lower McLeod River January Creek at RK AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River AB-132 Bench Creek Lower McLeod River Page 5-9

49 TABLE 5.2 Cont d Fish Habitat Sensitivity Rating Crossing Number Proposed Crossing Name Watershed High* (Red) (cont d) AB-136 Bench Creek Lower McLeod River AB-137 Little Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River AB-138 Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River AB-144 Unnamed tributary to Upper McLeod River McLeod River at RK AB-153 Rooster Creek Athabasca River AB-155 Ponoka Creek Athabasca River AB-157 Roundcroft Creek Athabasca River AB-163 Unnamed Tributary to Athabasca River Hunt Creek at RK AB-164 Hunt Creek Athabasca River AB-167 Trail Creek Athabasca River AB-168 Unnamed Tributary to Athabasca River Athabasca River at RK AB-177 Cache Percotte Creek Athabasca River AB-180 Hardisty Creek Athabasca River AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River Notes: 1 Habitat sensitivity rating based on existing information at the proposed pipeline corridor. * List does not include sites not visited during the FFP but defaulted to fish-bearing status and High sensitivity rating. Beaver activity (i.e., current or historic beaver dam) with the potential to influence fish habitat was noted within the Fish and Fish Habitat LSA of 28 of the 185 sites assessed during the FFP. Of these sites, the beaver activity coincided with High fish habitat sensitivity at crossings of Blackmud, Whitemud, Little Sundance, Sundance, Ponoka, Bench (i.e., both crossings), Brule and Little Brule creeks, as well as the unnamed tributary to the McLeod River at RK 270.1, the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK 199.8, the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK and the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK Among these locations, it is expected that the beaver impoundments occurring at the time of the FFP enhanced rearing or wintering habitat potential for species of management concern at: Little Brule Creek (Arctic grayling); Brule Creek (northern redbelly dace); Bench Creek at RK (northern redbelly dace); Little Sundance Creek (Arctic grayling); Sundance Creek (Arctic grayling); the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK (northern redbelly dace); and the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK (northern redbelly dace) Fall 2012 Spawning Assessments In general, conditions in the Pembina and McLeod rivers and Wolf Creek were suitable for snorkel and redd survey observations. The snorkel surveys at each occurred during average flow conditions and the radius of visibility ranged between 2.5 and 4 m Pembina River The number of observed fish encountered during the September 19, 2012 snorkel survey of the Pembina River was underwhelming. Despite the use of paired snorkelers, suitable habitat composition and complexity and excellent conditions for snorkelling, only 102 fish were observed over 5.5 km of habitat traversed. Most (n=75, 73.5%) of the fish observed were sucker species, although 7 mountain whitefish, 16 walleye and 4 trout (species unconfirmed) were also observed (Table 5.3). Six of the 7 mountain whitefish observed were considered to be juveniles (i.e., < 30 cm total length [TL]) and were most frequently observed in foraging habitat. No evidence of spawning activity by this or other fall spawning indicator species was observed. The observation of four trout (species and maturity unconfirmed) is an important result since previous encounters of any trout species in the Pembina River (i.e., near the proposed pipeline corridor) are uncommon (Hildebrant pers. comm.). No trout species has been previously documented downstream Page 5-10

50 from the proposed pipeline corridor (FWMIS 2013), while the nearest previously documented encounter of trout species upstream from the proposed pipeline corridor is > 100 km upstream (FWMIS 2013). The abundance of trout species (and other salmonids) is expected to increase with distance upstream from the proposed pipeline corridor. During an October 19, 2012 snorkel survey of the Pembina River originating at SW W5M (unrelated to the Project and approximately 140 km upstream from the proposed pipeline corridor), 1 Arctic grayling, 3 bull trout, 1 brook trout and approximately 250 mountain whitefish were observed over an approximate 350 m study area (Popowich pers. comm.). Although unique in its location, the observation of four suspected trout near the proposed pipeline corridor during the 2012 fall spawning survey should not be discounted and may be indicative of the species downstream distribution limit within the Pembina River mainstem. The observation of adult walleye during the snorkel survey of the Pembina River is also of note. Each observation was made of single or paired fish and coincided with deep pool/run habitat occurring with associated scoured bedrock substrate. It is unclear whether the walleye observed were located in early wintering habitat or were seeking refuge during daylight hours. Regardless, it is expected that the Pembina River provides habitat for this species during the watercourse s RAP. The confirmation of fish use within the Pembina River s Fish and Fish Habitat LSA during the fall season supports the High habitat sensitivity rating assigned during the FFP. TABLE 5.3 COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES OF FISH SPECIES OBSERVED DURING THE SNORKEL SURVEY OF THE PEMBINA RIVER - SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 Reach/Length (km) Abundance Mountain whitefish Sucker spp. Trout Species Walleye Total 1/5.5 Count Percentage 6.9% 73.5% 3.9% 15.7% 100% McLeod River Results from the 2012 fall spawning assessment supported the assertion that fish habitat near the proposed crossing of the McLeod River is of High sensitivity for species of management concern. During the September 18, 2012 snorkel survey, 4,225 fish were observed over approximately 13 km of habitat downstream from the proposed pipeline corridor. This total was comprised of Arctic grayling (n=10), mountain whitefish (n=2,461), northern pike (n=2), walleye (n=15), burbot (n=1), rainbow trout (introduced populations) (n=1) and sucker species (n=1,735) (Figure 5.3). Of particular importance was the observation of 2,461 mountain whitefish, 2,007 of which were estimated to be of adult size (i.e., > 30 cm TL) and many of which were encountered in congregations. The state of maturity of these adult fish was not determined during the snorkel survey. However, it can be presumed, based on the habitat in which they were encountered (i.e., run/pool habitat) and the timing of survey which coincide with the spawning period of the species, that these congregations of fish were either staging for spawning activity or were in the process of migrating upstream to other potential suitable spawning areas. A qualitative assessment of habitat type made during the snorkel survey indicated that habitat composition over the first 4-5 km downstream from the proposed pipeline corridor consisted of regularly sequenced riffle-run-pool units, while further downstream it transitioned into a more flat dominated habitat composition. Page 5-11

51 Figure 5.3 Distribution of Fish Observed in the McLeod River Downstream from the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor, September 18, 2012 Number of Fish Observed Rainbow Trout Burbot Northern Pike Walleye Arctic Grayling Mountain Whitefish Sucker species Distance Downstream from the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor (km) Notes: Triangular icons represent approximate locations of key landmarks: 1) Township Road 533a Bridge; 2) Railway Bridge; 3) Wolf Creek Confluence; and 4) Edson River Confluence. The observation of other coldwater sportfish and coolwater sportfish species in the McLeod River is also notable, although the frequency of observed individuals of Arctic grayling, rainbow trout (introduced populations), walleye and northern pike could be considered incidental. The infrequent observations of these species suggests that these observed fish may have either been encountered in late summer foraging habitat or early wintering locations and/or are uncommon in the area. The potential rarity of these species, particularly trout species, in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline corridor is supported by 2013 sampling results from the Fish and Wildlife Division (AESRD). During sampling of the McLeod River mainstem in 2013 from Highway 47 to the Town of Whitecourt, Alberta, no trout were encountered (Cox pers. comm.). No other spawning or spawning-related activity was observed of other fall spawning species (e.g., bull trout) known to occur in the McLeod River Wolf Creek Comparatively fewer fish (n=68) were observed during the snorkel survey of Wolf Creek (i.e., over a total distance of 4.0 km) on September 17, 2012, and although mountain whitefish comprised the largest component of the observed fish count (n=36, 52.9%), only five adult mountain whitefish were observed. Congregations of staging or spawning mountain whitefish were not observed in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline corridor. However, a single redd was observed approximately 530 m downstream from the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor. The redd, which was approximately 40 cm in diameter (pit diameter) and constructed within large gravel substrate, was encountered adjacent to an undercut bank. Although fish were not observed on the redd, a single adult (i.e., approximately 30 cm TL) brook trout was observed within 50 m downstream. Given the size of the redd, the timing of the observation and the proximity of the brook trout observed, it was presumed that the redd was created by brook trout. This species have not been previously documented in Wolf Creek (Hildebrandt pers. comm.), although they have been documented in the McLeod River (FWMIS 2013). Sucker species, Arctic grayling, northern pike and other trout species (which were not identified to species) comprised the total of observed species in Wolf Creek (Table 5.4). Spawning activity and diversity of species observed during the fall Page 5-12

52 survey support the High habitat sensitivity rating assigned to Wolf Creek during other components of the FFP. Reach/Length (km) TABLE 5.4 COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES OF FISH SPECIES OBSERVED DURING THE SNORKEL SURVEY OF WOLF CREEK - SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 Abundance Mountain Whitefish Sucker spp. Brook Trout Arctic Grayling Northern Pike Unidentified Species 1/4.0 Count Percentage 52.9% 19.1% 1.5% 14.7% 5.9% 5.9% 100% Total Wintering Habitat Potential Survey A total of 16 proposed crossings were visited during the 2013 wintering habitat potential survey. Of these crossings, 7 were at crossings of habitat of High sensitivity for species of management concern: Little Brule, Carrot, Wolf, Bench and Little Sundance creeks; and unnamed tributaries to January Creek at RK and RK Among these, wintering habitat potential for species of management concern were confirmed or rated higher (i.e., as compared to ratings assigned during assessments conducted in the open water season) at the crossings of Little Brule, Carrot, Wolf, Bench and Little Sundance creeks. At unnamed tributaries to January Creek at RK and RK 202.6, wintering habitat potential ratings for species of management concern (including northern redbelly dace) were diminished, resulting from limited water depth, flow and water quality parameters. Among the other named watercourses where wintering habitat potential assessments were completed, January, Atim and Zeb-igler creeks were each assigned a Low rating. At each of these crossings, wintering habitat potential ratings for species of management concern were decreased (i.e., as compared to ratings assigned during assessments conducted in the open water season) due to limited water depth, flow or insufficient water quality parameters. Wintering potential ratings assigned to all sites visited during the 2013 wintering habitat potential survey were prioritized for inclusion in overall habitat sensitivity assessment and are represented in Appendices C and D Fall 2013 Spawning Assessments In general, conditions in Maskuta, Hardisty, Sundance and Little Sundance creeks were suitable for snorkel and redd survey observations. The snorkel survey occurred during average flow conditions for the time period and although light precipitation (rain showers) and subsequent runoff were experienced on September 25, 2013, water clarity was suitable at all four watercourses for snorkelling. However, abundant woody debris and instream vegetation at Little Sundance Creek is expected to have limited the effectiveness of underwater observation at this location. Water temperatures ranged between 6 C and 8 C at the four watercourses on September 24 and 25, During the assessment period, the radius of visibility (i.e., distance in one direction) in each of the Maskuta, Hardisty, Sundance (day and night snorkel surveys combined) and Little Sundance creeks averaged 2.5 m, 3.0 m, 1.5 m and 3.0 m, respectively. In comparison, wetted widths observed at Maskuta, Hardisty, Sundance and Little Sundance creeks averaged 7.0 m, 4.2 m, 11.3 m and 7.0 m. Based on these data and since the snorkeler was continuously changing his field of view and position, he was able to view, on average, at least 27% (range of 27% to 100%) of each of the watercourse s wetted width. The visibility to wetted width ratios are comparable to those reported from other snorkel surveys in similar systems, most notably from Popowich and Eisler (2011) and Eisler and Popowich (2013) where 45% of the Kananaskis and Crowsnest river widths, respectively, were visible during snorkel surveys in 2010 and Although some proportions of wetted widths visible to the snorkeler during the 2013 fall spawning assessment (as well as that from 2010 and 2012 referenced above) appear low, the selective sampling Page 5-13

53 approach (i.e., sampling with a bias for spawning habitat suitability) used by the snorkeler maximized the probability of encountering mature fish Maskuta Creek The fall 2013 spawning assessment at Maskuta Creek occurred over a distance of 1,200 m, a reach extending from 1,000 m downstream of the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor to 200 m upstream. A total of 11 fish were observed during the snorkel survey (Table 5.5). Of this total, eight fish were confirmed to be the species level (i.e., five rainbow trout and three brook trout), while two additional trout (unconfirmed species) and one sculpin (unconfirmed species) were also observed. Of the species observed, brook trout were the only fall spawning species identified. Each of the three brook trout observed were estimated to exceed 200 mm TL and, therefore, were assumed to be adults. Given the timing of the survey (September 25, 2013) and the presumed October 1 spawning period start date for brook trout in ES3 (ASRD 2009), it is realistic to assume these fish may have been observed in or near potential spawning habitat. No bull trout or mountain whitefish were observed. Three redds were observed during the spawning assessment at Maskuta Creek; all downstream from the proposed pipeline corridor. Pit size diameter of each was approximately 20 cm and in each case, the redds were observed in small gravel/fine substrate. No fish were observed in their vicinity, so it is not clear as to which redd-constructing and fall spawning species created them. However, given the size of the redds and the presence of the brook trout during the survey, it is most likely that the redds were created by resident brook trout. Spawning activity and diversity of species observed during the fall 2013 spawning assessment support the High habitat sensitivity rating assigned to Maskuta Creek during other components of the FFP and the recommendation for adherence to the September 1 to July 15 RAP for instream work (AENV 2006b). TABLE 5.5 COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES OF FISH SPECIES OBSERVED DURING THE SNORKEL SURVEY OF MASKUTA CREEK - SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 Reach/Length (km) Abundance Rainbow Trout (Introduced Populations) Brook Trout Sculpin spp. Unidentified Species 1/1.2 Count Percentage 45.5% 27.3% 9.1% 18.1% 100% Total Hardisty Creek During the September 24, 2013 snorkel survey of Hardisty Creek, 130 fish were observed over approximately 1,400 m of habitat (Figure 5.4). The surveyed reach extended from 1,000 m downstream of the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor to approximately 400 m upstream, although data presented in Figure 5.4 represents the tally of fish observed within each 200 m section occurring in an upstream to downstream direction (i.e., left to right). Rainbow trout (n=53) and brook trout (n=29) were the only species encountered and identified to species level, while an additional 48 trout (species unidentified) were also observed. Both juvenile and adult brook trout and rainbow trout were observed during the snorkel survey. No confirmed observations of mountain whitefish or bull trout resulted and no fish > 40 cm TL (of any species) were encountered. Page 5-14

54 Figure 5.4 Distribution of Fish Observed in Hardisty Creek in the Vicinity of the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor, September 24, Rainbow Trout Brook Trout Trout (species unidentified) Number of Fish Observed Note: ,000 Distance from the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor (m) Tally of observed fish relative to the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor is presented in an upstream to downstream direction (i.e., left to right). Two redds were also observed during the spawning assessment at Hardisty Creek; both were observed downstream from the proposed pipeline corridor and were clustered in the same location. Pit diameters were approximately 10 cm each and occurred in small gravel/fine substrate. No fish were observed in their vicinity, so it is not clear which redd-constructing and fall spawning species created them. However, given the size of the redds and the presence of the brook trout during the survey, it is most likely that the redds were created by resident brook trout. Results from the fall 2013 spawning assessment supported the assertion that fish habitat near the proposed crossing of the Hardisty Creek is of High sensitivity for species of management concern, in addition to supporting and the recommendation for adherence to the September 1 to July 15 RAP for instream work (AENV 2006b) Sundance Creek The fall 2013 spawning assessment at Sundance Creek was conducted between the proposed pipeline corridor and the crossing of Township Road 532a, approximately 1,000 m downstream. Over this distance, a total of 162 fish were observed, including mountain whitefish (n=153, 95.0%), rainbow trout (n=2, 1.2%), burbot (n=2, 1.2%) and sucker species (n=5, 3.1%). It is noteworthy that rainbow trout occurring in Sundance Creek are possible pure strain Athabasca rainbow trout (Sterling pers. comm.). No redds were observed during the spawning assessment. Figure 5.5 represents the combined distribution of fish observed during both the day and night snorkel surveys occurring on September 25, Since the night snorkel occurred only within the survey section between the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor and 200 m downstream, study design may partially explain the greater relative abundance of fish in the survey section nearest the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor. During the night snorkel, approximately six times more fish were observed by the snorkeler (n=81) than during the day (n=14) within the same reach. In addition, congregations of juvenile (< 20 cm TL) and adult (> 30 cm TL) mountain whitefish were encountered during the night snorkel, but were not observed during the day snorkel. It is expected that a change in fish activity between the survey times resulted in the increased observations. Similar differences in results occurring between day and night snorkeling surveys in Sundance Creek were also reported by Christie et al. (2010). Page 5-15

55 The state of maturity of the adult mountain whitefish could not be determined during the snorkel survey. However, given the timing of the observation and the presumed September 16 start date for the spawning of this species in ES3 (ASRD 2009), it is realistic to expect that the spawning of mountain whitefish occurred within the Fish and Fish Habitat LSA of the proposed pipeline corridor in The observation of juvenile fish, including possible Athabasca rainbow trout and burbot (both indicator species), also indicates that habitat in the vicinity of the proposed crossing is used by multiple life stages of numerous fishes. Results from the fall 2013 fall spawning survey at Sundance Creek supported the assertion that fish habitat near the proposed crossing is of High sensitivity for species of management concern, in addition to supporting the recommendation for adherence to the September 1 to July 15 RAP for instream work (AENV 2006b). Figure 5.5 Distribution of Fish Observed in Sundance Creek Downstream of the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor, September 25, 2013 Number of Fish Observed Rainbow Trout Burbot Mountain Whitefish Sucker species ,000 Distance Downstream from the Centre of the Proposed Pipeline Corridor (m) Little Sundance Creek A total of 400 m of habitat was surveyed at Little Sundance Creek on September 25, The study reach extended downstream from the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor exclusively. Although water clarity was suitable for underwater observations, numerous woody debris piles and abundant instream vegetation were encountered and are expected to have limited the effectiveness of the snorkel survey results. No fish or redds were observed during the assessment. It could be expected that multiples of adult fish would be present if the area supported fall spawning species (e.g., mountain whitefish). Although no fish were observed during the fall 2013 spawning assessment, limited visibility and abundant cover elements indicate that the absence of spawning activity should not be assumed. Fish presence (including indicator species) within the Fish and Fish Habitat LSA for this watercourse was confirmed during previous sampling efforts (Appendix C) Indicator Species All of the indicator species known to occur within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment, with the exception of bull trout, were captured at select watercourse crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor (Table 5.5). Arctic grayling were captured or observed at three watercourses during the FFP (i.e., Little Brule and Wolf Page 5-16

56 creeks and McLeod River). Based on comparative analysis with unpublished data, it is suspected that Athabasca rainbow trout were captured or observed at three watercourses during the FFP or by AAR (2006) (i.e., Little Sundance and Sundance creeks and the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River at RK 310.8) (Sterling pers. comm.). Northern pike were captured or observed at four watercourses during the FFP or by AAR (2006) (i.e., McLeod and Lobstick rivers and Wolf and Carrot creeks). Walleye were captured or observed at three watercourses during the FFP (i.e., Wolf Creek and McLeod and Pembina rivers). Burbot were captured or observed at the McLeod River and Wolf and Sundance creeks. At least one indicator species was captured or observed at 12 proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor during the FFP or by AAR (2006). These watercourses are: North Saskatchewan, Pembina, Lobstick and McLeod rivers; Little Brule, Wolf, Trail, Hardisty, Little Sundance, Sundance and Maskuta creeks; and the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River at RK With the exception of the North Saskatchewan River, the indicator species are predominantly found in the Pembina, Lower McLeod and Athabasca River Watersheds. Aside from the McLeod River, which supports all of the indicator species, the North Saskatchewan and McLeod rivers and Wolf, Little Sundance, Sundance, Hardisty and Maskuta creeks all support a minimum of three indicator species. TABLE 5.6 INDICATOR SPECIES CAPTURED OR OBSERVED AT POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Bull trout Bull trout were not captured or observed at any proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor. Arctic grayling AB-111 Little Brule Creek Pembina River AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River Athabasca rainbow trout AB-137 Little Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River AB-138 Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River AB-168 Unnamed Tributary to Athabasca River at RK Athabasca River Northern pike AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River AB-117 Lobstick River Pembina River AB-119 Carrot Creek Lower McLeod River AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River Walleye AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River Burbot AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River AB-138 Sundance Creek Athabasca River Other Species of Management Concern Five of the 12 additional species of management concern were captured at select watercourse crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor (Table 5.6). These species include: brook trout; rainbow trout (introduced populations); mountain whitefish; mooneye; and spoonhead sculpin. Brook trout were captured or observed at eight watercourses during the FFP (i.e., Wolf, Ponoka, Roundcroft, Hunt, Maskuta and Hardisty creeks and at the unnamed tributary to McLeod River at RK and the unnamed tributary to Hunt Creek at RK 307.7). Rainbow trout (introduced populations) were captured or observed at four watercourses during the FFP (i.e., McLeod River and Trail, Hardisty and Maskuta creeks). Mountain whitefish were captured or observed at five watercourses during the FFP or by AAR (2006) (i.e., North Saskatchewan, McLeod and Pembina rivers and Wolf and Sundance creeks). Mooneye were only captured or observed at the North Saskatchewan River (AAR 2006), while spoonhead sculpin were captured in Maskuta and Carrot creeks. Page 5-17

57 Similar to indicator species captured or observed during the FFP, the additional species of management concern are predominantly found in the Pembina, Lower and Upper McLeod and Athabasca River Watersheds. Table 5.6 identifies the select watercourses within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment that species of management concern were captured or observed at. These species of management concern are in addition to the indicator species captured or observed in Table 5.5. TABLE 5.7 OTHER SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN CAPTURED OR OBSERVED AT POTENTIAL WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Species Master Crossing Number Watercourse Name Watershed Brown trout Brown trout were not captured or observed at any proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor. Brook trout AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River AB-144 Unnamed Tributary to McLeod River at Upper McLeod River RK AB-155 Ponoka creek Athabasca River AB-157 Roundcroft Creek Athabasca River AB-163 Unnamed Tributary to Hunt Creek at Athabasca River RK AB-164 Hunt Creek Athabasca River AB-180 Hardisty Creek Athabasca River AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River Rainbow trout (introduced populations) AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River AB-167 Trail Creek Athabasca River AB-180 Hardisty Creek Athabasca River AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River Cutthroat trout Lake sturgeon Sauger Cutthroat trout were not captured or observed at any proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor. Lake sturgeon were not captured or observed at any proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor. Sauger were not captured or observed at any proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor. Mountain whitefish AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River AB-66 Pembina River Pembina River AB-129 Wolf Creek Lower McLeod River AB-131 McLeod River Lower McLeod River AB-138 Sundance Creek Upper McLeod River Yellow perch Yellow perch were not captured or observed at any proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor. Mooneye AB-14 North Saskatchewan River Middle North Saskatchewan River Spoonhead sculpin AB-119 Carrot Creek Pembina River AB-188 Maskuta Creek Athabasca River Goldeye Goldeye were not captured or observed at any proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor. Northern redbelly dace Northern redbelly dace were not captured or observed at any proposed crossings within the proposed pipeline corridor Navigable Watercourses Of the 52 fish-bearing watercourses and NCDs (i.e., excluding wetlands) assessed during the FFP, 29 were deemed to be non-navigable. Alternatively, 19 did not meet the criteria of the MWWO (NWPA) (GOC 2009) or TERA s internal standard and were, therefore, classified as Potentially Navigable. The North Saskatchewan, Pembina and McLeod rivers and Wolf Creek were all assumed to be navigable based on previous determinations, their size and frequency of use. Page 5-18

58 Most of the nonfish-bearing watercourses and NCDs were determined to be non-navigable (Table 5.8). Based on its proximity to Blackmud Creek, wetted width and depth, the unnamed NCD at RK 15.7 is classified as Potentially Navigable. None of the nonfish-bearing sites were assumed to be navigable, while the determination of navigability status at crossings of wetlands is provided in the Wetlands Evaluation Technical Report of Volume 5C. TABLE 5.8 NAVIGABILITY DETERMINATIONS OF THE PROPOSED CROSSINGS INVESTIGATED Fish-Bearing Status Navigability Classification Total Number Fish-Bearing Watercourses and NCD Class Class Class Potentially Navigable 4 19 Navigable 5 4 Nonfish-Bearing Watercourses and NCD Class Class Class Potentially Navigable 4 1 Navigable 5 0 Notes: 1 As determined by Section 11(2) of the MWWO (NWPA). 2 As determined by Section 11(3) of the MWWO (NWPA). 3 As determined by TERA s internal criteria (see Section 3.6.5). 4 May require confirmation of navigation through consultation with the NEB and/or user groups. 5 Assumed to be navigable Traditional Ecological Knowledge A variety of fish species were identified by participants during field surveys along the Edmonton to Hinton Segment including: pickerel (walleye); sturgeon (lake sturgeon); brook stickleback; jackfish (northern pike); grayling (Arctic grayling); whitefish (lake whitefish); flathead (flathead chub); rocky mountain whitefish (mountain whitefish); burbot; white sucker; finescale (finescale dace); pearl dace; trout species including rainbow, brook and bull trout; and fresh water clams (found in muddy areas). According to participants, trout species tend to travel alone and can grow to 30 cm in length, while whitefish (lake whitefish and mountain whitefish) move in schools. Participants also indicated that the presence of blue heron (great blue heron) often suggests that there are trout, stickleback and grayling present in the water, since these fish are the main staple of the heron s diet. Jackfish (northern pike) and suckers go to smaller watercourses to spawn. Whitefish (lake whitefish and mountain whitefish) are known to spawn in March, while other fish tend to spawn in late spring and early summer as water temperatures rise. Whitefish (lake whitefish and mountain whitefish) are small and shiny and are difficult to catch; once caught they are fried and eaten. Fish are also smoked and apple wood may be used to create the smoke. Participants shared that sucker fish (sucker species) are some of the tastiest fish to eat because they are easy to clean and the bones are large and easy to pick out. The skin by the neck is cut and peeled away like a sock ; the meat is white and is typically fried. Fishing at watercourses crossed by the proposed Edmonton to Hinton Segment is conducted through the use of nets, pole and line fishing rods, trap baskets and snare wires. With a net, up to 200 fish can be caught at a time. Nets are also set under the ice in winter to catch fish. Often, ice fishing is practiced to avoid the bugs in the warmer months. Fish are abundant in watercourses in the fall and participants report that the fish caught in the fall taste better than those caught at other times of year. Trap baskets are used in traditional fishing methods and are made by weaving certain plants together. If cared for properly, the traps can be submerged several times. Trap baskets are called peech-poo-nagga in the Saulteaux language. Historically, cattails were used as snorkels when fishing. Fishermen would hollow out the stalk to breathe through while sitting low in the water, hardly moving. They would wait for fish to happen by, then grab the fish with their bare hands. Page 5-19

59 Participants also shared information about the navigability at watercourses. Canoes, kayaks, motor boats, row boats with oars and handmade rafts are used for navigation by the Aboriginal people along the Edmonton to Hinton Segment. Historically, canoes were used to travel long distances to trade with neighbouring communities and since a canoe is quieter than walking, it is effective for hunting moose. Fur traders used the Pembina River as a travelway, but more than likely it would have also been used as a route that people followed overland on horseback, since there would have been suitable campsites along the way. People would travel from east to west going upstream using canoes. In the spring, the water is very muddy due to rain and runoff, but it clears up in the summer and can then be used for drinking. The flow of the river is fast and dangerous; swimming is not recommended. A participant reported that if there are bugs in it, you can drink it. The water levels will rise in the months of June and July, and the best areas to fish are in deeper holes or pockets of water. Fly fishing is known as the most common form of fishing along the Pembina River, but more traditional methods, such as net fishing are also used. Northern pike, suckers (sucker species), Arctic grayling and rainbow trout can be found in this river. Fresh water clams were also identified by participants and it was shared that, historically and today, the shells are used to make utensils and jewelry. The Pembina River is also used as a wildlife highway by otters, beavers and muskrats. Participants reported that water quality and fish populations have been declining steadily over the past 30 years at watercourses along the proposed Edmonton to Hinton Segment, while at watercourses nearer to the Rocky Mountains, the water is still clean. This steady decline is considered by participants to be due to the cumulative effects of pollution and industrial development in the region. Participants noted that rivers are now black where they used to run clear and previously moving water is now still. People used to drink the water out of every river, lake, stream and creek, but are now limited in what they can drink and often must boil the water before they consume it. Animals and fish can stomach polluted water, but are getting sick as a result, and people can no longer rely on fishing and hunting as sustenance. Some participants say that, currently, only the natural springs are clean enough to drink from. A participant shared that when she was younger, lakes would have so many fish that when she put her hand in the water, a fish would swim into her palm and she could grab it. The decline of fish health and water quality is also considered to be due to rising water temperatures. Oil spills near water have made animals sick and it is has only become worse in the last 10 years. Participants shared that sometimes they have to throw away meat because the animal was sick from consuming contaminated water and plants, which sometimes shows up as white spots or pustules on the flesh. Many of the watercourses along the proposed Edmonton to Hinton Segment move slowly and participants attribute this to beavers building dams that partially block the flow of water. Beaver dams have also influenced fish and their habitat, since these dams lower the water levels downstream. Participants reported that some watercourses have also become narrower over time and that they were likely wider during the glacial period when there were larger amounts of snow in the mountains and, therefore, more runoff to feed these watercourses. Good water flow typically means that there are fish present. Participants explained how natural spring water moves underground and as the water travels, it picks up sand and minerals. Once spring water reaches the surface, the face of the soil turns a rusty colour. Natural spring sand was historically used for medicinal purposes, but the knowledge of how it was used has been lost. Water can also be orange in colour due to high levels of iron in the water or proximity to a cut line. If there is too much iron in the water, the animals will not drink it. Moss will also start to turn orange, since it absorbs the colour of the water. Iron may leach into water from rusty scrap metal nearby. Detailed TEK related to aquatic resources for the Project along the proposed Edmonton to Hinton Segment is provided in Table 5.9. Page 5-20

60 TABLE 5.9 FISHERIES-RELATED TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE RECORDED ALONG THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Location Watercourse Description/Observation RK 20.4 Unnamed NCD at RK 20.4 No surface flow, bordered by an urban area, a highway and existing disturbances; non-navigable. RK 24.2 Blackmud Creek Navigable. RK 85.7 Unnamed NCD at RK 85.7 Non-navigable. RK Unnamed NCD at RK No water present; non-navigable. RK Sturgeon Creek Northern pike and historically navigable by canoe. Not navigable now; too windy and narrow. Flows into Lake Isles, Lac St. Anne, Devil s Lake and then to the North Saskatchewan River. RK Pembina River Northern pike, suckers (sucker species), Arctic grayling, rainbow trout and fresh water clams; navigable. RK Zeb-igler Creek Not navigable; too narrow. RK Unnamed tributary to Brule Creek at RK Fish present including juvenile white sucker and stickleback (brook stickleback). RK Carrot Creek Navigable and fish-bearing. RK Unnamed tributary to Fish-bearing. January Creek at RK RK McLeod River Fish-bearing and navigable, but shallow in parts. Lake whitefish, bull trout, dolly varden (bull trout) and northern pike. RK Bench Creek Fish-bearing. RK Sundance Creek Arctic grayling and whitefish (mountain whitefish). Reports of beaver dams towards Sundance Lake. Potential spawning area. RK Unnamed tributary to McLeod River Fish-bearing. at RK RK Unnamed tributary to McLeod River White sucker minnows caught. Navigability difficult due to log jams. at RK RK Unnamed NCD at RK Slow-moving watercourse. RK Unnamed NCD at RK Moderate flow; fish-bearing. RK Rooster Creek Good coverage from the tree canopy, potential spawning area and potentially fish-bearing. RK Roundcroft Creek Potential fish such as flathead (flathead chub), minnows (species unknown), stickleback (brook stickleback), suckers (sucker species) and trout (trout species) Good spawning habitat. Moderate flow, contaminated and fishbearing. RK Unnamed NCD at RK Once supported fish. RK Unnamed tributary to Fish-bearing and navigable. Rainbow and bull trout. Athabasca River at RK RK Unnamed tributary to No fish. Hardisty Creek at RK RK Hardisty Creek Fish-bearing and ideal spawning habitat. RK Unnamed NCD at RK No fish and no channel. Concerns were raised by participants during field studies for the Project along the proposed Edmonton to Hinton Segment pertaining to all watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor (in addition to the proposed crossing locations listed in Table 5.9). Participants identified concerns related to water quality affecting the overall health of animals, fish and people who use the water in the region, as well as the potential effects of Project construction activities on fish and fish habitat and riparian habitats. Construction practices and measures to mitigate these identified potential effects were discussed with participants in the field and are described below. Concerns related to potential effects of spills on the aquatic environment (Section 3.0 of Volume 5A) are considered within the assessment of various onshore facility spill scenarios provided in Volume 7A. Crossing recommendations, mitigation and watercourse reclamation measures discussed with the communities included the following. Page 5-21

61 Proposed watercourse crossing methods are selected in consideration of the size and the environmental sensitivities of the watercourses (inclusive of TEK), in addition to the period of construction. Although not all watercourse crossings will be suited for trenchless methods, the feasibility of the trenchless method must first be evaluated to determine the advantages, limitations and risks associated with each trenchless crossing compared to more traditional, trenched crossing methods. Water quality monitoring during watercourse crossing construction will occur at specific watercourse crossings in order to protect aquatic resources during and following construction, as well as to ensure compliance with applicable water crossing permit conditions. Clearing within vegetated riparian buffers crossed by the proposed pipeline easement and TWS will occur only if it is absolutely necessary. The construction right-of-way will be recontoured and approach slopes will be stabilized following crossing installation and will include the installation of sediment controls (e.g., fences, fabric, cross ditches, etc) until revegetation of the disturbed land is complete. Riparian areas, banks and approaches will be seeded with an approved annual or perennial grass cover crop or native grass mix as soon as feasible after construction. Temporary erosion control measures such as temporary berms, sediment fences or cross ditches will be installed within 24 hours of backfilling banks and approach slopes of watercourse crossings at any location where runoff from the construction right-of-way may flow into a watercourse. Page 5-22

62 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended pipeline and vehicle and equipment crossing methods for the proposed crossings along the Edmonton to Hinton Segment are provided in the following subsections and the Watercourse Crossing Summary Table (Appendix A). Fish-bearing status and habitat sensitivity ratings assigned at all crossings were integral in the development of the recommendations provided below. However, the proposed crossing methods for the 202 crossing locations along the Edmonton to Hinton Segment also included consideration of results from desktop analysis, TEK studies, logistical and preferred engineering considerations (i.e., the Crossing Selection Matrix as described in the Project Design and Execution Engineering of Volume 4A) and industry experience. Land access was permitted at 185 of 202 potential crossing locations during the FFP. At the 17 potential crossings where field surveys were not completed and where insufficient sitespecific information exists, recommendations for these crossings were defaulted to standards outlined in the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (GOA 2013a) and the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (GOA 2013b) (i.e., using preferred methods in accordance to the RAP), and with reference to the Crossing Selection Matrix (Project Design and Execution Engineering of Volume 4A). Recommendations for these sites are subject to change following the proposed supplemental studies (Section ). 6.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment Recommended Pipeline Crossings Methods Trenchless Methods Trenchless pipeline crossing methods (e.g., HDD) are proposed for five watercourse crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment: Little Brule and Wolf creeks; and the North Saskatchewan, Pembina and McLeod rivers. Habitat at these crossings was identified as being of High sensitivity and/or the presence of species of management concern was confirmed during desktop analysis and/or the FFP. It is important to note that beaver activity in the area of the proposed crossing of Little Brule Creek influenced habitat potential at the time of the FFP. Should beaver activity change between the FFP and construction, the proposed crossing method should be re-evaluated. Trenchless pipeline crossing methods are the most preferred pipeline crossing method (DFO 2008a) and were recommended to reduce the potential to negatively affect the productive capacity of the aquatic habitat at these proposed crossings. Trenchless pipeline crossing methods could occur at any time, regardless of the RAP, and would only require notification to DFO (e.g., under the Alberta OS for High- Pressure Directional Drilling [DFO 2008a]) and to AESRD (e.g., under the Code of Practice for Pipeline and Telecommunication Lines Over a Water Body [GOA 2013a]). These watercourse crossings would, however, need to be constructed in a manner that adheres with all of the mitigation and reclamation measures discussed in Section 7.0. It is recommended that water quality monitoring coincide with trenchless construction at any crossing of fish-bearing habitat, regardless of construction timing. It should be noted that trenchless pipeline crossing methods could be used as an alternative or contingency pipeline crossing method at any of the crossings where trenched pipeline construction methods are proposed. A trenchless pipeline crossing method will only require notification to DFO under DFO s Alberta Operational Statement for High-Pressure Directional Drilling (DFO 2008a) or the Operational Statement for Punch and Bore Crossings (DFO 2008b). These crossings will need to be constructed in a manner that adheres with all of the mitigation and reclamation measures discussed in Section 7.0 and associated OS Trenched Methods Trenched pipeline construction methods are proposed by Trans Mountain at the remaining 197 crossings of watercourses, NCD and wetlands included in this report (Project Design and Execution Engineering of Volume 4A). In all instances for watercourses, fish-bearing watercourses and NCDs, isolated trenched pipeline construction methods are recommended if water is present at the time of construction, while open cut methods are recommended for crossings that are dry or frozen to the bottom (throughout the Page 6-1

63 entire proposed pipeline corridor) at the time of construction. It should be noted that the proposed trenched pipeline consruction crossing of Whitemud Creek, a Class B watercourse (AESRD 2013a) should only occur if trenchless methods are determined as being not technically or environmentally feasible. Recommendations for pipeline construction and vehicle crossing methods for the proposed crossings of wetlands which are nonfish-bearing are provided exclusively in the Wetland Evaluation Technical Report of Volume 5C. In addition, crossing recommendations in the Wetland Evaluation Technical Report of Volume 5C should be referenced in addition to those below for the crossings of watercourses with associated wetland features (Appendix A). A fish salvage should accompany each isolated trenched pipeline construction crossing in Alberta (GOA 2013a), although the personnel used to complete the salvage and the salvage methods can vary depending on the potential for fish presence at construction. It is recommended that a QAES-led fish salvage be completed at all trenched crossings of fish-bearing habitat, as well as at Happy Creek. If preferred, Trans Mountain Environmental Inspectors (EIs) could complete fish salvages without the assistance of a QAES at the remaining locations. It is expected that separate FRLs will be required for QAES-led or EI-led fish salvages Fish-Bearing Watercourses, Wetlands and Non-Classified Drainages For the crossings of 23 fish-bearing sites where fish habitat was confirmed to be of High sensitivity and/or where species of management species occur, it is recommended that isolated trenched pipeline construction methods occur within the Least Risk Biological Window (i.e., outside of the RAP) and that a water quality monitoring program coincide with construction (Appendix C). These crossings include: Blackmud Creek; Whitemud Creek; Brule Creek; Lobstick River; Carrot Creek; the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK 199.8; the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK 202.6; the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK 202.8; Bench Creek (both crossings); Little Sundance Creek; Sundance Creek; the unnamed tributary to McLeod River at RK 270.1; Rooster Creek; Ponoka Creek; Roundcroft Creek; Cache Percotte Creek; the unnamed tributary to Hunt Creek at RK 304.7; Page 6-2

64 Hunt Creek; Trail Creek; the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River at RK 310.8; Hardisty Creek; and Maskuta Creek. It is recommended that trenched pipeline construction at January Creek and the unnamed tributary to McLeod River at RK (both fish-bearing watercourses) should also occur within a Least Risk Biological Window of July 16 to August 31 (i.e., outside of the RAP), despite the crossings Low habitat sensitivity ratings for species of management concern. These recommendations are made in consideration of the watercourses size and potential to provide migration for species of management concern year-round or Moderate potential to support multiple life stages of several other fishes. At crossings of the remaining 26 fish-bearing habitats (i.e., inclusive of watercourses, wetlands and NCDs confirmed during the FFP), where habitat sensitivity was determined to be Low and species of management concern do not occur, trenched pipeline construction methods could occur at any time (i.e., regardless of the RAP) (Appendix A), presuming the successful implementation of appropriate mitigation and reclamation measures during construction (Section 7.0). These crossings include: Goldbar Creek; the unnamed wetland at RK 40.5; the unnamed wetland at RK 85.0; the unnamed NCD at RK 41.7; Dog Creek; Atim Creek; the unnamed tributary to Atim Creek at RK 64.2; the unnamed tributary to Atim Creek at RK 65.5; Killini Creek; the unnamed tributary to Kilini Creek at RK 91.1; the unnamed tributary to Wabamun Lake at RK 108.5; the unnamed tributary to Isle Lake at RK 126.8; Zeb-igler Creek; the unnamed wetland at RK 42.9; the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK 156.5; the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK 157.1; the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK 159.7; the unnamed NCD at RK 165.6; Page 6-3

65 the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK 168.2; the unnamed NCD at RK 177.5; the unnamed tributary to Brule Creek at RK 178.9; the unnamed tributary to the Lobstick River at RK 189.0; the unnamed tributary to January Creek at RK 198.8; the unnamed tributary to the McLeod River at RK 257.7; the unnamed wetland at RK 280.4; and the unnamed tributary to Maskuta Creek at RK Despite its Low habitat sensitivity rating for species of management concern, a water quality monitoring program should be implemented to coincide with trenched construction at the unnamed tributary to Maskuta Creek at RK 338.6, given the crossing s proximity (i.e., < 500 m upstream) to Maskuta Creek. Similarly, water quality monitoring should coincide with trenched pipeline construction at Zeb-igler Creek and the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK if it occurs within the RAP, given the watercourses Moderate rearing habitat potential for some species of management concern. It should be noted that no RAP was assigned to the four fish-bearing wetlands by the assessing QAES, given their low habitat potential and absence of species of management concern during the FFP. It is understood that isolated trenched pipeline construction methods at all four of these locations may not be possible depending on construction timing and water volumes contained within the wetlands. If open cut methods are required as an alternative construction method, discussion with DFO will be warranted to ensure appropriate regulatory review and relevant mitigation can be developed. Isolated pipeline trenched construction within the Least Risk Biological Window (i.e., outside of the respective RAP) is also recommended for the 14 watercourse crossings (including Sandstone Creek) which were not visited during the FFP, but were defaulted to fish-bearing and High sensitivity status. Recommendations for these crossings are subject to change following the proposed supplemental studies (Section ). AESRD requires notification for crossings of all watercourses and wetlands under the Code of Practice for Pipeline and Telecommunication Lines Over a Water Body, prior to construction. Notification to AESRD for crossings of fish-bearing NCDs (where associated with wetlands) is also recommended. There are no further regulatory requirements for fish-bearing NCDs to AESRD if they are not identified as being associated with watercourses or wetlands. Notification to DFO under the Alberta Operational Statement for Isolated and Dry Open-Cut Stream Crossing (DFO 2008c) is also recommended for the crossings of fish-bearing watercourse crossings which meet all of the conditions and mitigation measures in the OS. Alternatively, there are 15 potential fish-bearing watercourse crossings that do not meet all of the conditions and mitigation measures in the Alberta Operational Statement for Isolated and Dry Open-Cut Crossing (DFO 2008c) (e.g., bankfull width greater than 5 m wide, construction is within the RAP, etc.) and will require case-specific review by DFO. Determination of whether notification or case-specific review will be required for the 14 watercourses not visited during the FFP will be made following supplemental studies, pending access permission being provided. Trenched pipeline construction methods at fish-bearing NCDs and wetlands do not meet all of the conditions and mitigation measures in the DFO Alberta Operational Statement for Isolated and Dry Open-Cut Crossings (DFO 2008c) since they do not have defined bed and banks. Therefore, trenched pipeline construction methods at fish-bearing NCDs or wetland crossings will also require case-specific review by DFO. Page 6-4

66 6.1.3 Nonfish-Bearing Watercourses Despite having fish habitat of Low sensitivity for species of management concern, it is recommended that trenched pipeline construction at the unnamed tributary to Hardisty Creek at RK 318.6, the unnamed tributary to Hardisty Creek at RK 319.0, Happy Creek and an unnamed tributary to Maskuta Creek at RK occur within the Least Risk Biological Window of July 16 to August 31 (i.e., outside of the RAP). This recommendation is made in consideration of Moderate spawning habitat potential for species of management concern at each location, potential presence of species of management concern (Cox pers. comm.) and/or each crossing s relative proximity to high sensitivity fish habitat occurring downstream. It is recommended that trenched pipeline construction methods could occur at any time (i.e., regardless of RAP) at all remaining nonfish-bearing watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment (Appendix D). These recommendations consider the absence of fish, lack of suitable habitat potential determined during desktop analyses and FFP, and distance from known fish habitat. At these locations, isolated trenched pipeline construction could occur when water is present while the open cut method could occur where the channel was dry or frozen to bottom throughout the entire proposed pipeline corridor at the time of construction. Should trenched pipeline construction be preferred within the RAP at the unnamed tributary to the Sturgeon River at RK or the unnamed tributary to Ponoka Creek at RK 294.4, water quality monitoring should coincide with construction given their proximity to the Sturgeon River and Ponoka Creek, respectively. AESRD will require notification for the pipeline crossing methods implemented for the proposed nonfish-bearing watercourse crossings prior to construction. There are no anticipated regulatory requirements associated with notification or application (Fisheries Act) for these nonfish-bearing watercourses, presuming the successful implementation of appropriate mitigation and reclamation measures during construction (Section 7.0) Proposed Crossings Requiring Realignment Following the FFP and where trenched pipeline construction methods are recommended or are contingency options, 24 crossings were recommended to be realigned, if possible, to avoid meander bends, unstable banks or areas where the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor parallels a watercourse. These observations were made at the centre of the proposed pipeline corridor and are not necessarily representative of conditions within the entire proposed pipeline corridor. As a result, it is anticipated that a suitable realignment within the proposed pipeline corridor will be possible to avoid these characteristics. If the proposed or contingency crossings cannot be realigned and trenched pipeline construction methods are proposed, it is anticipated that a site-specific reclamation plan may need to be developed, particularly for the crossings at habitat of High sensitivity Beaver Dam Removals At crossings where trenched pipeline construction methods are proposed, 11 were influenced by beaver activity (e.g., beaver dams/impoundments) at the time of the FFP. It is expected that the beaver dams on these locations may need to be removed to reduce the water levels during construction and facilitate the successful use of isolated trenched techniques. It may be determined that the removal of beaver dams is required at other crossings where trenched construction will be required and additional impoundments may be created at other crossings before construction occurs. Alternatively, previously observed beaver dams may become abandoned or are naturally breached prior to construction. It is, therefore, recommended that the status of beaver dam activity at the proposed crossings be monitored, as changes in the status of beaver impoundments may influence the recommended crossing methods provided above (e.g., Little Brule Creek) and warrant re-assessment as the timing of construction approaches. If beaver dam removals are required and all of the conditions and mitigation measures outlined in DFO s Alberta Operational Statement for Beaver Dam Removal (DFO 2008d) are followed, they will only require notification to DFO under the above-mentioned OS. If beaver dam removal does not satisfy all conditions and mitigation measures, a case-specific review by DFO for the beaver dam removals would be required. Page 6-5

67 6.1.6 Contingency Pipeline Crossings Methods If trenchless methods at the North Saskatchewan, McLeod and Pembina rivers and Little Brule and Wolf creeks are not geotechnically feasible or cannot be completed, it is recommended that an isolated trenched pipeline construction method be used (where feasible) as a contingency method (Appendix A). Should trenched contingency methods be required at the Pembina River or Little Brule Creek, realignment should be considered to avoid steepened banks and/or to ensure a perpendicular crossing angle to the watercourse. It is expected that given the size of the North Saskatchewan River, isolated trenched construction will not be possible and that an open cut method may be necessary if a contingency method is required. Similarly, flow conditions at Wolf Creek and at the Pembina and McLeod rivers may result in the need to construct their respective contingency crossings via isolated trenched pipeline construction methods inside the RAP or by open cut methods outside the RAP. These contingency methods are not necessarily reflective of fish and fish habitat related considerations but primarily based on engineering and/or hydrotechnical influences. Trenched pipeline construction methods at any of these sites will not meet the conditions (e.g., mean bankfull width at each is greater than 5.0 m) and mitigation measures in DFO s Alberta Operational Statement for Isolated and Dry Open-cut Crossing (DFO 2008c) and would require a case-specific review by DFO. In the event the contingency pipeline method needs to be implemented, site-specific mitigation and/or reclamation plans may need to be developed for each crossing to ensure their productive capacity is maintained at each watercourse. Alternatively, discussions with DFO should be conducted to confirm whether approved fish habitat compensation/offset plans will be required prior to contingency trenched pipeline construction methods as mitigation alone may not ensure the sustainability of productivity of the fisheries in these systems. This is particularly important at proposed crossings where open cut methods may be needed and at crossing where trenched pipeline construction inside the RAP may be necessary. It is anticipated that the recommended methods for pipeline construction for the remaining watercourse, fish-bearing wetland and NCD crossings will be successful and no contingency methods are proposed for these crossings Recommended Crossing Methods for Nonfish-Bearing Non-Classified Drainages and Nonfish-Bearing Wetlands With the successful implementation of appropriate industry standard mitigation measures, isolated trenched (if water is present) or open cut trenched (if dry or frozen to the bottom) pipeline construction methods can be applied at all nonfish-bearing NCD crossings (Appendix A). Depending on characteristics at each of these sites during construction, an appropriate vehicle and equipment crossing method should be selected by Trans Mountain. The appropriate use of snowfills and ice bridges, logfills, culverts, swamp mats and clear span bridges may be possible at nonfish-bearing NCDs, depending on flow conditions expected throughout the time in which the crossing structure will be needed. There are no anticipated regulatory requirements to either DFO or AESRD associated with notification or application for construction, or installation of pipeline crossing methods and vehicle and equipment crossing methods across nonfish-bearing NCDs. Of the 36 wetlands investigated during the FFP, 32 were confirmed as being nonfish-bearing and not providing suitable fish habitat potential for species of management concern along the proposed pipeline corridor within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment. Crossing method recommendations and related mitigation measures for these 32 wetland crossings are provided in the Wetland Evaluation Technical Report of Volume 5C. In addition, 39 crossings of watercourses were associated with wetland features (Appendix A). At these locations, supplemental crossing recommendations, relevant to wetlands, are provided in the Wetland Evaluation Technical Report of Volume 5C Recommended Temporary Vehicle and Equipment Crossing Methods Construction within the proposed pipeline corridor will also require temporary watercourse crossings for vehicles and equipment. Wherever possible, and regardless of fish presence or habitat sensitivity at the Page 6-6

68 Project s watercourse crossings, it is recommended that vehicles and equipment utilize existing bridges, culverts and/or roads Fish-Bearing Watercourses, Wetlands and Non-Classified Drainages During frozen conditions and where there is sufficient ice at the time of construction, vehicles and equipment could cross all fish-bearing watercourses using snowfills and ice bridges if no existing crossing occurs. These crossing methods will only require notification to DFO under DFO s Alberta Operational Statement for Ice Bridges and Snow Fills (DFO 2008e). Approval under the Water Act will be required from AESRD, as per Schedule 2, Section 1(f)(ii) of the Water (Ministerial) Regulation (GOA 1998), for placing, construction, installing, maintaining, replacing or removing an ice bridge/snowfill (if required) on the portion of the North Saskatchewan River where the proposed pipeline corridor occurs. AESRD will require notification for vehicle crossing methods implemented for the remaining proposed watercourse crossings on the White Area lands in Alberta. AESRD does not require notification for snowfills, ice bridges or clear span bridges at the watercourse crossings in Alberta s Green Area since the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (GOA 2013b) on Green Area lands in Alberta does not apply to these vehicle and equipment crossing methods. There are 58 potential watercourse crossings on White Area lands (RK 0 to RK 247.9) and 30 potential watercourse crossings on Green Area lands (RK to RK 339.4). A suitable, year-round alternative crossing method at most fish-bearing watercourses is a Type 1 clear span bridge, as defined by GOA (2013b) with supporting structures located outside of the ordinary high watermark. With the successful implementation of the appropriate conditions and mitigation measures in DFO's Alberta Operational Statement for Clear Span Bridges (DFO 2008f) and the Operational Statement for Temporary Stream Crossings (DFO 2008g), a clear span bridge crossing method will ensure compliance with the OS. As such, activities at the proposed watercourse crossings will only require notification under this OS. It is recommended that either snowfill or ice bridges, or clear span bridges be used at crossings where steep approaches and/or unstable banks occur at the time of construction. Although fish-bearing, the unnamed wetland at RK 40.5, Dog Creek, the unnamed wetland at RK 85.0, the unnamed tributary to Kilini Creek at RK 91.1, the unnamed wetland at RK 142.9, the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK 156.5, the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK , the unnamed wetland at RK and the unnamed tributary to Maskuta Creek at RK have habitat of Low sensitivity for species of management concern. As a result and given site characteristics at these locations, a Type 3 culvert crossing would also be a suitable structure at each. Type 3 culvert crossings would also be suitable at the unnamed NCDs at RK 41.7, RK and RK At crossings where culverts do not alter waterbody characteristics below the 1 in 25 year flood level and the culverts are less than 1.5 m wide in diameter, AESRD does not require notification in the Green or White areas of Alberta. The use of culverts larger than 1.5 m wide in diameter requires notification to AESRD for both the Green or White areas. Regardless of size, the installation of a culvert at any proposed crossing that is fish-bearing will require case-specific review by DFO. It is expected that at some proposed crossings, the removal of beaver dams and the draining of beaver impoundments may be required prior to the installation of temporary vehicle and equipment crossing structures. Refer to recommendations related to beaver dam removal in Section above for relevant information. A Type 5 logfill or alternative (e.g., swamp mat) crossing structures may also be suitable alternative crossing method in winter at the unnamed wetland at RK 40.5, Dog Creek, the unnamed wetland at RK 85.0, the unnamed tributary to Kilini Creek at RK 91.1, the unnamed wetland at RK 142.9, the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK 156.5, the unnamed tributary to Chip Lake at RK 159.6, the unnamed wetland at RK and at the unnamed NCDs at RK 41.7, RK and RK Regardless of which structure is used as a Type 5 crossing, this method should only be used at crossings where the watercourse, wetland or NCD is dry or frozen to the bottom, or where there is sufficient ice cover to support the crossing. In addition, the crossing must be removed before spring breakup or within 6 months of installation, whichever is the earlier occurrence (GOA 2013b). Additional mitigation for this crossing method is provided in Section 7.0. DFO would require a case-specific review of this crossing type. Page 6-7

69 Nonfish-Bearing Watercourses, Wetlands and Non-Classified Drainages At crossings of most nonfish-bearing watercourses (all of which have Low overall habitat sensitivity for species of management concern), Type 3 culvert crossings could be installed (with isolation from flow) as alternate crossing structures to snowfills/ice bridge or clear span bridges. Type 5 logfill (or a suitable alternative) could be installed (with isolation from flow) at Fulton Creek, the unnamed tributary to the Lobstick River at RK and the unnamed tributary to the Athabasca River at RK The use of either a clear span bridge or ice bridge, however, is specifically recommended at Happy Creek given its Moderate spawning habitat potential for species of management concern and potential presence of species of management concern (Cox pers. comm.). Type 3 culvert crossings and Type 5 logfill or a suitable, approved alternative (e.g., swamp mat) crossing structures could also be used as an alternate temporary vehicle and equipment crossing method at non-fish bearing NCDs. Vehicle and equipment crossing method recommendations for nonfish-bearing wetland locations are provided exclusively in the Wetland Evaluation Technical Report of Volume 5C Traditional Ecological Knowledge Participants have not recommended any watercourse crossing strategies related to aquatic resources in addition to those described earlier in this section. A comprehensive review of the recommended mitigation measures provided in Section 7.0 and of all the issues raised by participating Aboriginal communities was conducted with each community during the field surveys and during follow-up results review (Section 3.6.7). Concerns related to aquatic resources were addressed by the proposed mitigation measures described in Section 7.0 and participants have not recommended any mitigation strategies related to aquatic resources additional to those described Supplemental Studies It is expected that supplemental studies, focusing on fish and fish habitat, will be required on behalf of the Project. The rational for various types of supplemental studies are described below but are generally defined as studies to be conducted post-submission of the application to confirm the effects assessment conclusions and gather site-specific information for the implementation of mitigation from the Projectspecific Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs). The FFP focused on the assessment of potential fish habitat traversed by the Edmonton to Hinton Segment, where private and Crown land access was permitted. In some cases, access to proposed crossings occurring on private land was not permitted within the Fish and Fish Habitat LSA. This lack of access prevented initial habitat assessments, while in other locations, the timing of route alterations precluded multiple season sampling, where warranted. A total of 17 potential crossings (watercourses and wetlands) were not surveyed during the FFP (or which could not be assessed based on existing site-specific information). These crossings will require field visits to confirm habitat potential and use for species of management concern. An additional two crossings (i.e., Lobstick and North Saskatchewan rivers) will require site visits to collect photos of current habitat conditions at the crossing location. It is also recommended that wintering habitat potential surveys, similar to those described in Section , be completed at Sundance, Rooster, Ponoka, Roundcroft, Hunt, Trail, Cache Percotte, Hardisty and Maskuta creeks, as well as the unnamed tributary to Hunt Creek at RK Each of these following watercourses occur between the Edson and Hinton areas and were not included in the 2013 wintering habitat potential survey since this portion of the Edmonton to Hinton Segment had not been included in preliminary routing provided at that time. Crossings identified as locations where supplemental studies (to occur after October 15, 2013) will be required are provided in Table 6.1. It is expected that studies at these locations will occur in winter 2013 and spring In the absence of field data from the FFP or acceptable existing data for the proposed crossings, watercourses with no previously recorded fish information have been defaulted to fish-bearing status. Watercourses with previously documented fish information and sufficient existing habitat related data (i.e., North Saskatchewan and Lobstick rivers) were assigned a fish-bearing classification and sensitivity ranking; although, it is recommended that a field investigation be carried out at these fish-bearing Page 6-8

70 watercourses, particularly at the Lobstick River, to collect detailed habitat information, photographs and to document fish presence within the Fish and Fish Habitat LSA. Where existing information was not available and site visits were not completed during the FFP most preferred crossing recommendations were assigned. These recommendations are subject to change, pending the completion of supplemental studies. It is recommended that supplemental site visits occur at five crossings where limited access permission prevented the assessment of each crossing s full LSA during the FFP. Return visits are, therefore, proposed at: Fulton, Dog, and Kilini creeks; the unnamed tributary to Hunt Creek at RK 304.7; and the unnamed tributary to Maskuta Creek at RK During these revisits, it is expected that habitat not observed during the FFP will be assessed for consistency or notable differences to that of habitat previously observed. Supplemental studies may also be required to assess any future route refinements or unmapped watercourse crossings identified during the detailed survey of the final route. Other supplemental watercourse assessments may also be required for, among others, finalized pump station locations, tank expansion boundaries and power lines or ancillary facilities occurring outside of the proposed pipeline corridor, including construction camps, storage areas, contractor yards and borrow pits. A potential example of where supplemental studies at facilities may be required is if finalized tank expansion plans within the Edmonton Terminal results in Circumstances and Interactions Requiring Detailed Information (NEB 2013a) for the Fish and Fish Habitat biophysical element. In this instance, an assessment of habitat potential and use of the suspected watercourse within the existing facilities boundaries would be necessary. The location and timing of these supplemental studies will follow the identification of route refinements, the completion of a detailed survey and/or during the Project s detailed engineering design phase. It is also acknowledged that a compensation/offset plan(s) and/or site-specific mitigation and reclamation plan(s) may be required if it is determined that Project-related activities will result in serious harm to fishes or their habitat. As such, specific pre-construction field programs to determine compensation/offset options may be required prior to construction. Locations and timing of supplemental work related to site-specific reclamation or compensation/offset planning will be identified during initial phases of regulatory review of the Project. A re-examination of the Project s federal notification and authorisation requirements, as related to construction activities with the potential to affect fish and fish habitat, will also be needed. It is expected that an MOU between the NEB and DFO will be released prior to the end of Once this MOU (and relevant review process tools) is interpreted with the Project s activities in context, appropriate notification and authorisation requirements (i.e., an update from what is currently provided in earlier sub-sections of Section 6.0) will be identified. Additional information gathered during ongoing engagement with potentially affected Aboriginal communities will be incorporated into Project planning, including the Project s EPPs and the Environmental Alignment Sheets, as appropriate. Page 6-9

71 TABLE 6.1 LOCATION OF POTENTIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FISH AND FISH HABITAT SURVEYS TO BE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OF THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Crossing Number RK Timing Supplemental Work Type Required AB Spring 2014 Confirmation of habitat consistency over remaining LSA. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Photo collection at crossing location/habitat confirmation. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Confirmation of habitat consistency over remaining LSA. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Confirmation of habitat consistency over remaining LSA. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Photo collection at crossing location/habitat confirmation. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Spring 2014 Confirmation of habitat consistency over remaining LSA. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Spring 2014 Fish habitat use and potential assessment. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Winter 2014 Winter habitat potential survey. AB Spring 2014 Confirmation of habitat consistency over remaining LSA. Page 6-10

72 7.0 MITIGATION AND RECLAMATION This section references Project-related interactions and effects, general mitigation and recommended reclamation measures specific to the Project s construction and operation. For the purpose of this report, discussion pertains to construction and operation of the proposed pipeline corridor only, since other components related to facilities and terminals were not identified as encroaching on watercourses. 7.1 Pipeline Construction and Operation Pathways of Effects The potential pathways of effects from pipeline construction and operation to the aquatic environment are well known. There are a number of pre-mitigation pipeline construction and operation activities that have the potential to directly affect the productive capacity of fish habitat at and near locations where construction occurs, including instream habitat and riparian habitat (Section 3.1). Depending on the sensitivity of the habitat and the potential presence of species of management concern, there may be greater potential for direct and indirect effects. Best Management Practices (Section 7.1.2) and Recommended General Mitigation Measures (Section 7.1.3) will be required to reduce or eliminate effects to aquatic resources before and during construction Best Management Practices Specific endpoint measurements for the Project, with specific reference to the Project s six Alberta fish indicator species, include potential direct mortality or injury to fish from Project activities and instream and riparian habitat loss or alteration at watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor in the Edmonton to Hinton Segment (Section 3.2). Relevant general mitigation strategies recommended for the Project incorporates reliable technology and is designed to reduce the potential for residual effects from the Project, as well as to maintain the current natural productive capacity of fish habitat. Mitigation recommended below incorporates standard measures provided in provincial and federal guidelines (e.g., DFO OSs and AESRD COPs), as well as industry accepted best management practices. Reducing the potential effects to aquatic resources from Project-related activities involves the incorporation of, among other sources, regional, provincial and federal policies and guidelines, wherever warranted. However, the passing of Bill C-38 in June 2012 and the final implementation of changes to the Fisheries Act in November 2013 resulted in changes to various federal legislation (e.g., the Fisheries Act, the CEA Act, SARA and the NEB Act) and ongoing changes to relevant regulations and policies. Specific to the Fisheries Act, legislative changes resulted in DFO s Habitat Management Program changing to the Fisheries Protection Program. The revised focus of DFO will shift from a habitat-based approach to one encompassing habitat and fish of Aboriginal, commercial and recreational value. Refer to Section of this report for more information. The following recommended mitigation for the reduction of potential effects are based on TERA's current understanding of how the Fisheries Act and other applicable acts are currently being administered during the transition period between previous and recently introduced policy. It is important to note that, as additional changes to the existing policies and regulations are implemented, the regulatory requirements for the proposed pipeline corridor under the federal Fisheries Act and other applicable acts may also change. As a result of these regulatory changes, revisions to some of the recommendations in this report may be needed after more information on the proposed regulatory changes is made available to the public. In the interim, it is recommended that Trans Mountain: maintain, without disruption, the natural productive capacity of the habitats potentially affected by avoiding any loss or alteration through redesign or realignment selection; mitigate potential damages using reliable techniques (e.g., crossing methods appropriate to the specific watercourses), plans (e.g., erosion and sediment control plan) and contingency plans (e.g., spill response and response to an inadvertent release of drilling fluid); and Page 7-1

73 consider the potential need for compensatory/offsetting options where fish habitat has been ranked as being of High sensitivity and where it is not possible to maintain the existing productive capacity through mitigation and reclamation. In coordination with the previous Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (DFO 1986), the newly released Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (DFO 2013a) and provincial COPs (GOA 2013a,b), Trans Mountain should employ best management practices to protect fish and fish habitat through the following: comply with all regulatory, permit and approval conditions including habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act; prevent the potential for adverse environmental effects and/or the release of deleterious materials to the environment; employ environmentally and economically responsible construction practices at all times, using applicable industry-accepted practices and procedures; select appropriate crossing techniques for the environmental sensitivity of the watercourse; construct watercourse crossings during low flow periods and with adherence to RAPs, where possible; use suitable isolation methods (dam and pump or flume) if water is present; attempt fish salvages at all watercourse crossings and other areas which provide fish habitat and where flow is present; conduct water quality monitoring for crossings with sensitive habitat and/or support species of management concern; use trenchless construction methods, where they are geotechnically feasible, for larger watercourses and/or where sensitive fish habitat exists; maintain the natural terrain integrity, including natural hydrologic regimes and slope stability at watercourses, drainages and fish-bearing wetlands; protect riparian areas near watercourses, drainages and fish-bearing wetlands and maintain their ecosystem function; restore all crossings to ensure that the productive capacity of the habitat is maintained; and apply detailed mitigation measures for all fish habitat which are designed to reduce or eliminate anticipated Project-related effects to fish and fish habitat Recommended General Mitigation Measures The recommendations and mitigation measures for the crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor included in this report were developed in accordance with, among other sources, construction standards outlined in the Guide for Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings, 3rd Edition (CAPP et al. 2005), as well as measures and guidelines provided by DFO Regional OSs for the Central and Arctic Region mentioned in Section 6.0, including DFO s Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline (DFO 1995), CCME s (2007) Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life and AESRD s Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (GOA 2013a) and Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (GOA 2013b). The Guide for Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings includes an endorsement from DFO that indicates that it is a compilation of modern planning considerations and best management practices for pipeline and vehicle crossing construction techniques. Page 7-2

74 It provides current environmental protection methods that are used to meet regulatory requirements across Canada and to minimize affects to fish and fish habitat from pipeline-related construction activities. The DFO OSs and AESRD COPs mentioned in Recommendations (Section 6.0) of this report contain numerous mitigation measures that should be followed regardless of whether or not all conditions listed in these documents have been included in the following subsections. Combined, these mitigation measures, when implemented successfully, will ensure that the aquatic capacity of each watercourse crossing is not compromised during instream activities. Note that additional site-specific mitigation measures may be necessary pending review from various provincial and federal agencies and following the confirmation of construction methods and timing at each crossing by Trans Mountain. Site-specific mitigation measures are not currently included in this document. The Project s Pipeline EPP (Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) is a comprehensive planning document, encompassing mitigation for all environments (e.g., wildlife and soils) and has been developed in accordance with industry and provincial regulatory guidelines for all disciplines, as well as in accordance with Trans Mountain s standards. The Pipeline EPP will be adhered to during the construction phase of the Project and will be a resource for planning and construction personnel. The Pipeline EPP provides mitigation measures and management plans to ensure the protection of the aquatic environment, which includes fish and fish habitat. The mitigation measures provided in this document, relative to fish and fish habitat, are also provided in the Pipeline EPP. Table 7.1 outlines potential activities associated with pipeline construction and operation which, if unmitigated, would negatively affect fish and fish habitat. The potential effects on fish indicator species associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline listed in Section 3.2 were identified based on, among others, the results of the literature review, desktop analysis, field surveys, industry experience and TEK studies, as well as consultation with regulatory authorities and stakeholders. Corresponding mitigation related to the potential activities are also in Table 7.1. Through the implementation of these measures, it is expected that the Project will meet the objectives of relevant federal and provincial requirements. The mitigation measures presented in Table 7.1 are presented with respect to the crossings potential effect on unique spatial boundaries identified by the Project (i.e., the Footprint Study Area and LSA). Since some of the potential effects are possible in multiple spatial boundaries, redundant mitigation recommendations result in Table 7.1. Page 7-3

75 TABLE 7.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION FOR THE EDMONTON TO HINTON SEGMENT Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1 Riparian and instream habitat for valuable sport, commercial and subsistence fisheries 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction Edmonton to Hinton Segment LSA General Construction Activities The EI(s) will ensure the implementation of the Pipeline EPP during all phases of pipeline construction (i.e., flagging/staking, clearing, topsoil/root zone material salvage, grading, clean-up and revegetation, sedimentation control, water withdrawal and watercourse/wetland crossings) [Section 6.0 of the EPP]. Ensure that mitigation measures concerning fish, wildlife or plant species at risk are communicated to employees, Contractor and subcontractors and are enforced by the EI(s) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Review all mitigation and regulatory requirements during the pre-job or tailgate meetings involving the appropriate personnel (i.e., the Contractor, the EI, water quality monitoring crews and/or subcontractors) to ensure that all applicable mitigation are understood and can be implemented [Section of the EPP]. Correspondence from regulatory authorities (e.g., DFO) may result in additional conditions and measures regarding the proposed works that will need to be incorporated into the mitigation program. Permits and Approvals Ensure that any approvals, licenses and permits that are necessary are in place prior to commencing applicable construction activities [Section 6.0 of EPP]. Notify the DFO Area Biologist (see Appendix D of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) if instream blasting at water crossings, to determine if approval is necessary [Section 4.0 of EPP]. Notify the Director 14 days (minimum) prior to any work on a water crossing in Alberta in accordance with the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (GOA 2013b) and the Water (Ministerial) Regulation. Notify the Regional Director within 24 hours in the event of a contravention of the above Code of Practice (COP) [Section 4.0 of EPP]. Notify the District Approvals Manager 14 days (minimum) prior to commencement of water crossing construction in Alberta. Notify the Director within 24 hours in the event of a contravention of the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (GOA 2013a) [Section 4.0 of EPP]. Notify the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Impact Assessment Biologists a minimum of 14 days, prior to the commencement of water crossing construction, in accordance with the applicable Operational Statements. Refer to the Letters of Advice or Authorization, if applicable, to determine the advance notice required by DFO [Section 4.0 of EPP]. Notify appropriate authorities and licensees, if required by COP (in Alberta) requirements, prior to the commencement of water crossing construction and prior to withdrawing water for hydrostatic testing [Section 4.0 of the EPP]. Work with regulatory authorities to determine the necessary approvals, licences and permits needed for a particular activity or construction site prior to the commencement of the applicable activity or construction at that site see Appendix D of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B). All conditions of applicable permits (including NEB Act approval, Historical Resources Act (Alberta) clearance approval, Alberta Water Act approval, DFO, AESRD lands permits, road crossing agreements, burning permits and irrigation canal crossing agreements will be met. Inconsistencies between conditions of different permits will be rectified prior to construction [Section 6.0 of the EPP]. Page 7-4

76 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Follow applicable DFO Operational Statements outlining conditions and measures to avoid serious harm to fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat when working in or near a waterbody that has been identified as providing fish habitat [Section of EPP]. Notify recreational boaters of the hazards associated with instream construction in accordance with NEB guidelines or approval conditions for navigable waters. Place warning signs (e.g., Warning Pipeline Construction Ahead) up and downstream of all the navigable crossing. The signs are to be legible at a distance recommended by the conditions of necessary permit approval(s) granted by the NEB, if applicable [Section 4.0 of the EPP]. Notify the appropriate regulatory authority a minimum of 10 days prior to the use of a ford, installation of a clear-span bridge, construction of an ice bridge or snow fill vehicle crossing, or maintenance of a culvert or bridge in accordance with applicable provincial and federal requirements [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Clearing Post signs, stake or flag (including name, number and RK) a minimum of 100 m from each waterbody or at the top of the approach slope (whichever is greater) following clearing to alert the Contractor of the upcoming waterbody [Section 6.0 of the EPP]. Maintain low vegetation or vegetated ground mat within the riparian buffer zone of watercourses, to the extent practical, by clearing only trees, walking-down low vegetation so low-lying vegetation remains intact. Limit grubbing of cleared/mowed trees/shrubs only to the trench line and work side area needed for the vehicle crossing to protect riparian areas [Section 8.1 of the EPP]. Leave vegetative ground mat and root structure intact at watercourses, wetland or lake riparian buffers when pre-clearing is necessary. Clearing/grading within the vegetated buffer is subject to approval of the EI(s) after considering: 1) slope gradient before grading and after slope has been graded out; 2) potential for sedimentation (i.e., soil texture of materials to be graded); 3) water crossing construction method and schedule; and 4) potential for reestablishment of cleared/grubbed riparian vegetation. Each crossing requires pre-planning with the EI(s) prior to work occurring [Section 8.1 of the EPP]. Fell trees away from watercourses and away from limits of the construction right-of-way to reduce damage to streambanks, beds and adjacent trees. Hand clear the area, if necessary, to reduce disturbance. Any trees, debris and soil inadvertently deposited within the ordinary high watermark will be promptly removed in a manner that avoids or reduces disturbance of the bed and banks. Trees will not be stood or hauled across watercourses [Section 8.1 of the EPP]. Clearly flag/stake the drill path and avoid clearing of riparian vegetation within the vegetated buffers at watercourses to be crossed using a trenchless method (e.g., HDD, bore) except, if necessary, along the travel lane [Section 8.1 of the EPP]. Reduce vegetation removal and particularly riparian vegetation removal for bridges to only that which is necessary for safety and operational needs [Section of the EPP]. Refer to environmental resource-specific mitigation tables for riparian vegetation salvage provided in Appendices I and K of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section 8.2 of the EPP]. Retain salvageable timber in the vicinity of water crossings for use in the construction of the watercourse vehicle crossings or reclamation works, if warranted [Section 8.1 of the EPP]. Grading Follow the measures outlined for soil handling and grading in the vicinity of waterbodies provided in Section 8.0 of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-5

77 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Reduce grading along the construction right-of-way and associated facilities, especially within watercourse and wetland vegetated buffers and on hay land and tame pasture lands with a competent vegetation mat/sod layer [Section 8.2 of the EPP]. Install erosion control measures, where warranted, prior to commencing grading in the vicinity of water crossings [Section 8.2 of the EPP]. Grade away from watercourses and wetlands to reduce the risk of introduction of soil and organic debris. Do not place windrowed or fill material in watercourses or wetlands during grading. Keep wetland soils separate from upland soils [Section 8.2 of the EPP]. Install temporary berms on approach slopes to watercourses and erect sediment fence(s) near the base of approach slopes to watercourse(s) following grading (see Drawings [Cross Ditches and Diversion Berms] and [Sediment Fence] provided in Appendix R of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) where indicated on the Environmental Alignment Sheets. Inspect the temporary sediment control structures on a daily basis and repair, if warranted, before the end of each working day [Section 8.2 of the EPP]. Erosion and Sediment Control Install erosion and sediment control measures to the satisfaction of the EI(s). Implement structures and materials (e.g., cross ditches and berms) as outlined in the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Contingency Plan (see Appendix B in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) to ensure that sediment, in surface water draining from the construction right-of-way does not adversely affect the surrounding terrain or watercourses/wetlands/lakes (see Drawings [Cross Ditches and Diversion Berms] and [Sediment Fence] and [Erosion Control Matting] provided in Appendix R of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B). In particular, control erosion on the banks of watercourses, valley slopes, unstable slopes and grade cuts disturbed by construction activities along the construction right-of-way [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Install and maintain appropriate erosion and sediment control measures to prevent sediments from disturbed areas from being transported into watercourses/wetland/lakes (see Drawings [Erosion Control Rollback in Riparian Areas] and [Mounding in Riparian Areas] provided in Appendix R of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Install sack trench breakers back from the edge of watercourses where the banks consist of organic material to prevent sloughing of backfill into the channel (see Drawing [Trench Breaker Watercourse/Wetland] in Appendix R of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section 8.4 of the EPP]. Install a temporary sediment barrier (e.g., sediment fences), where warranted, to eliminate the flow of sediment from spoil piles and disturbed areas into nearby watercourses/wetlands/lakes (see Drawing [Sediment Fence] in Appendix R of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Install temporary erosion and sediment control structures, where warranted, install sediment fences, around the perimeter of an ancillary facility site to restrict sediment laden runoff from flowing into a watercourse/wetland/lake [Section 12.0 of the EPP]. Install temporary berms on approach slopes to watercourses and erect sediment fence(s) near the base of approach slopes to watercourse(s) following grading (see Drawings [Cross Ditches and Diversion Berms] and [Sediment Fence] provided in Appendix R) where indicated on the Environmental Alignment Sheets. Inspect the temporary sediment control structures on a daily basis and repair, if warranted, before the end of each working day. [Section of the EPP]. Install permanent erosion control measures, as outlined in the Reclamation Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) unless otherwise approved by Trans Mountain to adjust for site conditions and suitability [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-6

78 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Equipment Fueling and Servicing Implement appropriate precautions to prevent deleterious substances (e.g., gasoline, sediment, oil, cement or concrete residue, etc.) from entering watercourses, wetlands or lakes. Cleaning, fuelling and servicing of equipment are to be conducted in an area where spills or wash water will not contaminate surface water or groundwater resources. An appropriate emergency spill kit is to be available at all times [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Ensure the following separation distances between a watercourse/wetland/lake when constructing the pipeline, unless otherwise approved [Section 7.0 of the EPP]: fuel or hazardous material storage site m; burning site m; and oil change and refuelling area m. Bulk hazardous materials will be stored in temporary construction yards or other designated areas except for quantities required for the daily construction activities. Wastes will be stored in temporary construction yards or other designated areas and removed during final clean-up. Fuel, oil or hazardous materials required to be stored on-site will be stored within secondary containment that is to be located greater than300 m from a watercourse, wetland or lake [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Ensure that during construction no fuel, lubricating fluids, hydraulic fluids, methanol, antifreeze, herbicides, biocides, or other chemicals are dumped on the ground or into watercourses/wetlands/lakes. In the event of a spill, implement the Spill Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Wash all equipment transferred between sub-basins to ensure that aquatic pests are not transferred [Section of the EPP]. Review and adhere to the general mitigation measures provided in Section 7.0 of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B related to equipment washing, inspection of hydraulic, fuel and lubrication systems of equipment, equipment servicing and refuelling as well as fuel storage in proximity to watercourses during water crossing construction [Section of the EPP]. Weld, coat and weigh the pipe prior to commencement of instream construction to the extent feasible. These tasks may be conducted in conjunction with instream construction at crossings of large watercourses [Section of the EPP]. Ensure that equipment arrives on site in a clean condition. Equipment should also be cleaned after construction to ensure it does not transfer soil, debris, invasive plants or aquatic pests (e.g., Myxobolus cerebralis - the parasite that causes whirling disease in fish) to other locations [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Conduct refuelling a minimum of 100 m (BC Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection 2002) from any watercourse/wetlands/lake unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authority [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Do not store fuel, oil or hazardous material within 300 m of a watercourse/wetland/lake [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Spill Response Report spills immediately to the EI(s) who will, if warranted, notify Environmental Compliance Manager for reporting to the appropriate regulatory authorities in accordance with the Spill Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Maintain all appropriate spill equipment at all work sites. Assess the risk of resource-specific spills to determine the appropriate type and quantity of spill response equipment and materials to be stored on-site and a suitable location for storage (see Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan in Volume 4B) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Page 7-7

79 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Ensure that bulk fuel trucks, service vehicles and pick-up trucks equipped with box-mounted fuel tanks carry spill prevention, containment and clean-up materials that are suitable for the volume of fuels or oils carried. Carry spill response supplies on bulk fuel and service vehicles that are suitable for use on land and water (i.e., sorbent pads, sorbent boom and rope) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. General Watercourse Crossing Mitigation Measures Adhere to water crossing requirements provided in environment resource-specific mitigation tables for aquatic resources provided i n Appendix I of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Ensure completion of the on-site checklist for pipeline and vehicle crossings for each watercourse and wetland prior to, during and following construction (attached). These checklists will be filled out by the EI(s). Retain these checklists as a permanent record of pipeline watercourse and wetland crossing installation [Section of the EPP]. Complete the water crossing planning sheets (see example provided at the end of Section 8 of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) prior to the commencement of any water crossing activities [Section of the EPP]. Ensure all necessary equipment, personnel and materials are on-site and ready for installation prior to commencing instream work. Complete all work as quickly as practical to limit the duration of disturbance [Section of the EPP]. Review and adhere to applicable instream timing constraints (RAP/least-risk window) and all resource-specific measures outlined in the mitigation tables for aquatic resources provided in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section of the EPP]. Limit instream construction to the shortest duration practical given the characteristics of the watercourse and the construction season [Section of the EPP]. Install the access and pipeline at each watercourse using the technique as identified in environmental resource-specific mitigation table for aquatic resources in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B and as shown on the Environmental Alignment Sheets. Ensure that the technique is implemented as per the reports/notifications/applications provided to applicable regulatory authorities [Section of the EPP]. Install pipeline and vehicle/equipment crossings at fish-bearing watercourse crossings outside the RAP for proposed crossings in Alberta, unless otherwise specified in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section of the EPP]. Permits and Approvals Notify the District Approvals Manager (Alberta only) (see Appendix D of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) 14 days (minimum) prior to commencement of pipeline or temporary vehicle and equipment water crossing construction [Section of the EPP]. Notify downstream water users, where warranted, 30 days prior to the commencement of instream crossing construction in accordance with measures identified in Section 4.0 of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section of the EPP]. Notify and/or determine if applicable authorisation, advice or approval is necessary from DFO and Transport Canada for water crossings, as warranted. [Section of the EPP]. Notify the EI(s) 24 hours (minimum) prior to commencement of water crossing construction (including activities within the riparian buffer) [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-8

80 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Confirm with the EI(s) that all notifications and approvals and/or letters of advice are in place prior to installing a temporary vehicle crossing or commencing instream construction at each water/canal crossing. Review crossing notification/approval conditions. Retain copies of approvals on-site during crossing construction [Section of the EPP]. Provide to the EI(s) 72 hours prior to the commencement of water crossing construction site-specific, detailed water crossing construction plans including isolation structure, pumps (sizes and quantity), discharge locations, by pass location, spoil containment areas, grey water management, trenching equipment and a plan describing the excavation procedure [Section of the EPP]. Water Quality Monitoring Develop a water quality monitoring plan with input from a QAES to monitor TSS concentrations during the installation and repair of open cut crossings. TSS concentration is to remain within the guidelines provided in CCME (2007) throughout the installation and repair of open cut crossings [Section of the EPP]. Develop water quality monitoring plans, where required, to monitor for suspended sediment during HDD, and select isolated trenched crossings of watercourses with High sensitivity fish habitat, or opencut crossing construction activities where flow is present. If monitoring reveals that sediment values are approaching threshold values, the water quality monitors will notify EI and EI(s) who, with Construction Manager and Contractor, will develop corrective actions [Section of the EPP]. Ensure a Water Quality Resource Specialist is on-site prior to commencement of crossing for the watercourses/wetlands/lakes identified in the environmental resource-specific mitigation tables for aquatic resources provided in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B and as per permit/approval conditions [Section of the EPP]. Assign the EI(s) or QAES with expertise in the containment of inadvertent release of drilling mud and clean up to HDDs under a watercourse (see Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan in Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Isolated Open Cut Crossings Notify the Lead EI and the EI(s) 72 hours prior to construction of any watercourse crossing or installation of isolation dams, diversions to ensure fish salvage operations are conducted, where warranted [Section of the EPP]. Construct the crossing in accordance with the COP (Alberta only) requirements and in accordance with the conditions of the DFO s Operational Statement for Isolated or Dry Open-cut Stream Crossings, or other DFO conditions (DFO 2008b) [Section of the EPP]. Ensure that generators and pumps used for the construction of isolated watercourse crossings and/or trench dewatering have secondary containment that can hold a capacity of 125% (minimum) of the fuel tank when stationed, operated or refuelled within 100 m of a watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Ensure maintenance of downstream flow conditions (i.e., quantity and quality) at all times when constructing an isolated crossing. If a pump-around method is used to maintain downstream flow, back-up pumping capacity must be onsite and ready to take over pumping immediately if operating pumps fail. Pumps are to be continuously monitored to ensure flow is maintained at all times until the dam materials are removed and normal flow is restored to the channel [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-9

81 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Ensure that isolation bypass water maintains downstream flow and does not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel. Methods and options for preventing erosion include: flow dissipaters; protection of the substrate with geotextile; releasing water onto vegetation; and strategically placing erosion control mats immediately adjacent to the watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Store spoil material removed from the trenched crossing above the ordinary high water level. Stabilize this material, if warranted, to reduce the potential for runoff events to transport spoil material into the watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Open Cut Crossings Ensure that trenching does not encroach upon the riparian buffer area at watercourse and wetland crossings. Allow adequate space for the excavation of a bellhole to complete the tie-in following watercourse/wetland crossing construction without disturbance of the riparian buffer [Section 8.3 of the EPP]. Dewater the trench, if warranted, when laying pipe in areas with high water tables. Place pumps on a tray or within an excavated sump lined with polyethylene sheeting above the ordinary high water level of the watercourse/wetland/lake. Pump water onto stable and well-vegetated areas, tarpaulins or sheeting at least 50 m from the nearest watercourse/wetland/lake in a manner that does not cause erosion or any unfiltered or silted water to re-enter a watercourse. Also, dewater the trench if existing or anticipated (based on precipitation forecasts) water levels or flow rates in the trench could overwhelm existing trench water control measures (e.g., berms, take-offs) allowing sediment-laden water to affect watercourses/wetlands/lakes. If warranted, install soft plugs or maintain hard plugs in the trench [Section 8.3 of the EPP]. Where conditions or measures for typical open cut of seasonally dry or frozen to the bottom watercourses and wetlands in Alberta will not be in accordance with the Operational Statement for Isolated or Dry Open-cut Stream Crossings (DFO 2008b) in Alberta (i.e., flowing water is expected to coincide with trenched construction), site-specific mitigation and/or reclamation plans will need to be developed. Discussions with DFO will be conducted to identify preferred timing for instream work in fish-bearing watercourses and wetlands and to confirm whether a fish habitat compensation/offset plan will be required [Section of the EPP]. Trenchless Crossings Construct trenchless crossings in accordance with the COP requirements and the conditions of the DFO s Operational Statement for High-pressure Directional Drilling (2008a) [Section of the EPP]. In the event that a trenchless crossing fails, ensure that all necessary approvals for continuing crossing method have been obtained by Trans Mountain in the event that a trenchless crossing fails and an alternate method is necessary [Section of the EPP]. Excavate the entry and expected exit sites to provide for the containment of drilling mud and cuttings during a HDD. Ensure the excavations are located far enough from the watercourse and in containment berms or tanks that are large enough to contain the anticipated maximum volume of drilling mud above the high watermark of the watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Ensure that water from dewatering entry and exit sites with a high sediment load is not discharged or allowed to flow into any watercourse/wetland/lake. Remove the sediment (e.g., filter or discharge into a vegetated area) before water is allowed to enter any watercourse/wetland/lake [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-10

82 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Locate bell holes and entry and exit sites back from the high watermark and far enough from the wetland to provide containment of sediments and other deleterious substances above the high watermark. Vegetation removal for the bellholes and entry and exit sites is only to occur within the approved construction right-of-way and workspace [Section of the EPP]. Ensure that water from dewatering bellholes and drill entry and exit sites with a high sediment load is not discharged or allowed to flow into the wetland. Remove the sediment load (e.g., filter or discharge into a vegetated area) before discharge water enters the wetland [Section of the EPP]. Follow the drilling mud frac-out monitoring and other measures provided in the Horizontal Directional Drilling/Trenchless Planning and Procedures Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) during an HDD [Section and of the EPP]. Vehicle Crossings Inspect all water conveyance installations (e.g., ditches and culverts) and ensure they are functioning appropriately. Take appropriate action prior to and during the spring freshet to clear culverts blocked by ice or debris [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Ensure that upgraded or new construction vehicle crossing structures are appropriate for the watercourse approaches, channel width and configuration, anticipated streamflows during the period of use, planned vehicle loads, and overall period/duration of use [Section of EPP] Schedule the installation of bridge abutments on multi-span bridges, if warranted, to occur within the instream work window where feasible or unless otherwise permitted by the appropriate regulatory authority [Section of the EPP]. Review vehicle crossing installation notification requirements identified in Section 4.0 of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B and ensure notifications have been completed [Section of the EPP]. Stabilize and revegetate areas disturbed during installation and removal of a bridge; install erosion control measures, where warranted, to control surface erosion until vegetation is established [Section of EPP]. Conduct fords during the installation of a vehicle crossing in accordance with the DFO Operational Statement Temporary Stream Crossings (in Alberta) (DFO 2008g) [Section of EPP]. Ensure the use of a ford is a one-time crossing (over and back) or limit ford to a seasonally dry streambed [Section of EPP]. Adhere to the instream works reduced risk-timing window when fording in watercourses where water is present [Section of EPP]. Confine the use of fords to watercourses or segments of watercourses with low, stable banks and a stable substrate composed of materials such as gravel or bedrock. Trans Mountain will not grade the banks to create a ford [Section of EPP]. Confine fording to periods of low flow when water depth will not impede passage of equipment [Section of EPP]. Install matting, where warranted, to protect the bed and banks of a watercourse to be forded [Section of EPP]. Install clean snowfills during frozen conditions at locations identified in the environmental resource-specific mitigation tables for aquatic resources provided in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B and at all minor and intermittent watercourses (see Environmental Alignment Sheets of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of EPP]. Install ice bridges at locations identified in the aquatic resources tables during frozen conditions (see Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of EPP]. Page 7-11

83 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Design, construct and abandon ice bridge and snow fill vehicle crossings at watercourses/wetlands/lakes in accordance with the applicable DFO Operational Statement for Ice Bridges and Snow Fills [Section of EPP]. Construct ice bridges and snow fills from clean snow, ice and local water; do not use soil, gravel, rock, slash, logs or other woody debris. Lift bulldozer blades when salvaging snow from adjacent upland areas to avoid the incorporation of grasses and other vegetation debris in the fill material [Section of EPP]. Remove or breach snow or ice bridge to ensure streamflow is maintained under the vehicle crossing. Ensure that removal of access does not disturb the bed or banks of the crossing. Ensure that equipment used during construction of the vehicle crossings is used in a manner that reduces disturbance of the bed and banks, and limits the risk of disrupting streamflow under the ice [Section of EPP]. Seed disturbed areas on the banks and approaches as soon as practical with an approved grass cover crop species or native grass seed mix and implement sediment control measures to stabilize watercourse banks and prevent sedimentation of the watercourse, respectively. Follow measures provided in the Reclamation Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of EPP]. Align, if feasible, new access roads or extensions to existing access a minimum of 100 m from watercourses/wetlands/lakes, and a minimum of 30 m back from the edge of terraces, ridges or other elevated landforms, if feasible [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Adhere to the conditions listed in the COP for Watercourse Crossings (GOA 2013a) and Design Guidelines for Bridge Size Culverts (Alberta Transportation 2004) in Alberta, as appropriate [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Install culverts, where warranted, to prevent accumulation of runoff water and allow surface water drainage to cross built-up access roads [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Use closed bottom structures (i.e., culverts) to provide temporary vehicle access at non-fish-bearing watercourses, or on fish-bearing watercourses within a defined non-fish-bearing reach. Ensure compliance with all respective provincial guidelines (e.g., COP in Alberta) when installing closed bottom structures [Section of the EPP]. Place armouring at both inflow and outflow ends of culverts, if warranted, to prevent erosion [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Ensure that culverts of proper size, number and alignment are in place to handle peak runoff events for the period/duration the culverts will be in place and to reduce water movement along ditches and road surface [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Reduce alteration of natural drainage patterns by aligning culverts with the drainage and at angles other than right angles to the road [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Provide adequate spillways for culverts in unstable areas or where road-fill materials are unprotected [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Provide sediment catch basins at the entrance to major culverts as deemed necessary by the appropriate regulatory authorities [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Install downspouts, where warranted, to transport water down the slope into prepared ditches where the outflow ends of culverts are located near the top of fill slopes [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Do not obtain rock to be used in the construction of aprons (to be installed or repaired at culvert inlets or outlets) from the normal high water level of a watercourse/wetland/lake. Place rocks at a slope similar to the culvert and channel in a manner that will not interfere with fish passage or constrict the channel width. [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Page 7-12

84 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Flag culvert ends. Periodically monitor culverts for blockages of flow and erosion at the ends. Conduct remedial measures, where warranted, to maintain cross drainage [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Do not apply dust control chemicals to roads during windy conditions or within 300 m of a watercourse/wetland/lake or sensitive agricultural crops (e.g., berries and nursery). Dust control chemicals to be approved by the Lead EI in advance of application [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Ensure ditches do not drain directly into a watercourse, unless limited by topography and approved by the appropriate regulatory authority. Install ditch blocks where required [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Do not use de-icer or salt for access road maintenance. Prevent sand used for maintenance purposes from entering watercourses by restricting sand application to access roads within 10 m of watercourses/wetlands/lakes [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Maintain all side cuts in roads in a stabilized and revegetated condition to the extent feasible. Apply geotechnical or bioengineering techniques, where warranted, to control chronic slumping problems that have the potential to contribute sediment to nearby watercourses [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Schedule culvert maintenance to commence within the least-risk window or outside of the applicable RAP (see Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authority [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Consider the use of culvert screening, PVC piping, fencing or other beaver deterrents at culvert locations that are prone to damming by beaver [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Construct or install temporary vehicle access across watercourses and adjacent to wetlands and lakes in a manner that follows provincial and federal guidelines [Section of the EPP]. Install and remove temporary vehicle crossings in a manner that protects the banks of watercourses from erosion and maintains flows [Section of the EPP]. Use existing vehicle crossings at watercourses crossed by access roads identified in Section 9.0 of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B and within the aquatic resources tables (see Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Install crossing structures as identified in the aquatics resources tables (see Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Consider alternate methods of vehicle crossings on a site-specific basis. The decision making process will include the Contractor, the Construction Manager, the EI(s) and the MOC process. Criteria to be considered when making a crossing structure decision will include protection of the riparian vegetation and fisheries values associated with the crossing location as well as applicable legislation [Section of the EPP]. Use only clean ice/snow for construction of an ice/snowfill or ice bridge. Approaches to the bridge should be constructed with compacted snow, ice or matting of sufficient thickness to protect the stream channel and banks. Soils are not to be used for ice bridge approaches [Section of the EPP]. Ensure streamflow, if present, is maintained under the vehicle crossing. Remove or breach snow or ice bridge to ensure they do not impede flow. Ensure that removal of access does not disturb the bed or banks of the watercourse crossing [Section of the EPP]. The use of log fills is only permitted in non-fish-bearing watercourses. Their use must be in compliance with all respective provincial guidelines (e.g., COP) when installing log fills [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-13

85 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Remove vehicle crossing structures from all watercourses following the season of construction unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authority. Remove all crossing structures on segments constructed during the winter prior to spring breakup. Remove snow or ice bridges, if used, cutting in a v-notch by physical means rather than blasting [Section of the EPP]. Temporary vehicle crossings may be left in place through spring breakup if this meets regulatory approval, or is otherwise approved by provincial and federal authorities and if the vehicle crossing has been designed to withstand high flows during spring break up. Otherwise remove the vehicle crossing prior to spring breakup and reinstall for use during final clean-up [Section of the EPP]. Use clear span bridges if ice thickness is insufficient to support an ice bridge; Clear span bridges should be installed perpendicular to the watercourse and should be designed to meet provincial requirements related to flood frequency levels unless recommended otherwise by a hydrology engineer. Remove clear span bridges prior to spring breakup [Section of the EPP]. Pressure Testing/Water Withdrawal Follow the mitigation measures related to water withdrawal provided in Water Withdrawal and Discharge Procedures Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) during hydrostatic testing [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Notify the Construction Manager, Lead Activity Inspector, the Lead EI(s) a minimum of 12 hours prior to commencing water withdrawal and test waterdischarge activities [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Determine which applicable regulatory authority approvals are necessary for water withdrawal and discharge to allow for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and to ensure conditions of approvals are satisfied during water withdrawal for hydrostatic testing [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Ensure that any approvals, licenses and permits that are necessary are in place prior to commencing applicable hydrostatic testing activities [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Determine if a Temporary Diversion Licence (TDL) from AESRD is necessary under the Water Act if water withdrawal for pressure testing will exceed 30,000 m 3. Trans Mountain will adhere to all conditions of the TDL [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Trans Mountain must authorize the Contractor s preferred water withdrawal sources for testing purposes (i.e., must have sufficient quantity and quality of water) [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Follow all conditions of federal/provincial/permits/approvals, if applicable, during hydrostatic testing [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Ensure that test water withdrawn from one drainage basin will not enter surface waters in another drainage basin [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Confirm that approvals/notifications are in place for the intended test water sources and that adequate streamflow/volume is present for the testing program [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Ensure that test water withdrawn from one drainage basin is not allowed to enter natural waters of another drainage basin. Further restrictions will be implemented where whirling disease is present. Ensure that pigs and other testing equipment are properly loaded in the pipe to allow the test water to be discharged at the intended location [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Do not exceed the provincial or federal water quality limits (e.g., CCME 2007) of the water quality of wash or other water discharged from a borrow site directly into a watercourse/wetland/lake that supports fish or provides fish habitat [Section 11.0 of the EPP]. Page 7-14

86 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Discharge locations will be preferentially selected to dewater onto stable terrain areas rather than directly into a watercourse/wetland/lake where the water will be filtered through vegetation and soils prior to returning to a watercourse/wetland/lake. Locations for dewatering will be into bar ditches, if feasible, or onto non-arable lands. Sediment reduction methods will be implemented on the bed, banks and approaches to the water source or discharge site, if warranted, to protect downstream fish, fish habitat and water users from increased sedimentation or reduced water quality. Discharge locations will be monitored to ensure that no erosion, flooding or icing occurs [Section 11.0 of the EPP]. Discharge water from a settling pond, retention pond or other storm water site onto the borrow site if feasible. Avoid discharging this water into a watercourse/wetland/lake without the approval of the EI(s) and acquisition of applicable approvals [Section 11.0 of the EPP]. Clean-Up and Reclamation Ensure any disturbance of the construction right-of-way on the approach to any watercourse or wetland crossed by the construction right-of-way and associated activities are reduced, stabilized and reclaimed [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Ensure disturbance of the right-of-way within the functional riparian area of any watercourse/wetland/lake encountered by the proposed construction right-of-way is reduced and stabilized and reclaimed [Section of the EPP]. Re-establish streambanks and approaches immediately following construction of water crossings as outlined in the Reclamation Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Install temporary sediment fences, where warranted, to control sedimentation prior to final clean-up and the establishment of permanent erosion and sediment control measures (see Drawing [Sediment Fence] in Appendix R of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B). Revegetate as soon as feasible to reduce or avoid soil erosion and establish long-term cover. Seed immediately following topsoil/root zone material replacement [Section of the EPP]. Reclaim all disturbances within one growing season. If feasible, seed and plant seedlings in early spring to take advantage of the spring precipitation [Section of the EPP]. Recontour the construction right-of-way and stabilize approach slopes at watercourse crossings. Where reclamation of the pre-construction grade is not feasible due to risk of failure of fill on slopes or maintenance of an access trail, recontour to grades as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer [Section of the EPP]. Seed riparian areas with an approved annual or perennial grass cover crop or native grass mix as soon as feasible after construction. See additional measures outlined in the Reclamation Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B). Install temporary erosion control measures such as temporary berms, sediment fences or cross ditches within 24 hours of backfilling banks and approach slopes of water crossings at any location where runoff from the construction right-of-way may flow into a watercourse. Commence clean-up immediately following backfill and erosion control operations. Transplant dormant shrubs, or install dormant willow stakes or commercially grown rooted stock plants (plugs), where warranted, during reclamation of streambanks where riparian vegetation present prior to construction. See additional measures outlined in the Reclamation Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) and aquatic resources (see Appendix J of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-15

87 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.1 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction (cont d) 1.2 Potential loss or alteration of instream and/or riparian habitat from pipeline construction See above See above Rollback slash and small diameter, salvageable timber on steep slopes and approach slopes to watercourses. Do not bury rollback when walking down with bulldozer. Leave gaps in rollback at all obvious wildlife trails [Section of the EPP]. Refer to environmental resource-specific mitigation tables for erodible soils and aquatic habitat features provided in Appendices F and I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B, respectively [Section of the EPP]. Clean equipment following water crossing construction and bank reclamation work to ensure the equipment does not transfer soil, debris, invasive plants or aquatic pests (e.g., Myxobolus cerebralis the parasite that causes whirling disease in fish) to other watercourses [Section of the EPP]. Install temporary fencing, if warranted, to allow the revegetation treatments to become established and avoid damage to the banks and riparian area by wildlife/livestock [Section of the EPP]. Return the bed and banks of each proposed crossing as close as feasible to their preconstruction contours. Crossings are not to be realigned or straightened in any way nor have their hydraulic characteristics changed [Section of the EPP] Follow site-specific reclamation or compensation/offset plans at select watercourse crossings, if deemed necessary, following confirmation of construction method and timing [Section of the EPP]. Edmonton to Hinton Segment Footprint Study Area General Construction Activities Abide by procedures presented in the QAES reports and/or notifications prepared to satisfy COP requirements [Section of EPP]. Abide by the conditions, including the 14 day notification period, of the DFO s Operational Statement for Beaver Dam Removal during open water conditions or, following a case-specific review, the Letter of Advice for removal of a beaver dam during frozen soil conditions in Alberta. Where approval for removal of a beaver dam has been granted, remove/breach the dam slowly by physical means in order to avoid the rapid release of water, erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourse, downstream flooding and siltation as well as wash out of downstream beaver dams. The preservation of water quality baseline parameters (e.g., turbidity, dissolved oxygen) will be maintained downstream of locations where beaver dams have been breached [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Clearing Prohibit the use of herbicides within 30 m of a waterbody unless otherwise approved by Trans Mountain s EI(s) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Clear vegetation located within the watercourse/wetland/lake vegetation buffer area crossed by the pipeline right-of-way and TWS only if absolutely necessary [Section 8.1 of the EPP]. Prohibit clearing of extra TWS within the riparian buffer, only the trench and TWS areas will be cleared. Ensure staging areas for watercourse/wetland crossing construction; grade/borrow areas for wetland ramps and spoil storage areas are located a minimum of 10 m from the banks of watercourse/wetland/lake boundaries. This distance may be reduced by the Lead EI and EI(s) where appropriate controls are in place and where no riparian area is present (e.g., cultivated or disturbed lands that abut the watercourse banks or boundaries of the wetland) [Section 8.1 of the EPP]. Adhere to the measures related to the maintenance of a vegetative mat within the riparian buffer zone on both sides of watercourse or wetland crossings [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-16

88 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.2 Potential loss or See above See above Maintain a minimum setback of 100 m from alteration of watercourses/wetlands/lakes, and a minimum setback of 30 m back instream and/or from the edge of terraces, ridges or other elevated landforms riparian habitat [Section 12.0 of the EPP]. from pipeline Salvage flagged or fenced live shrubs from the banks of watercourses construction if requested by the EI(s) or noted on the Environmental Alignment (cont d) Sheets. Store salvaged dormant shrubs on the side of the construction right-of-way in a manner such that they do not dry out before replanting during final clean-up [Section 8.1 of the EPP]. Salvage dormant willow shrubs from the banks of all watercourses (where present) to be disturbed and identified as requiring shrub salvage (outlined in the environmental resource-specific mitigation tables for aquatic or vegetation resources provided in Appendices I and J of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B). Store at the side of the construction right-of-way and use salvaged topsoil/root zone material to cover and protect roots from drying out. Other species such as dogwood, rose and wolf willow may also be used. If salvage of willows from the bank is likely to result in limited success (salvage during nondormant periods), transplant dormant willows obtained from the adjacent areas during clean-up or use container plant stock from nurseries. Determine if permission from the appropriate regulatory authority is necessary prior to salvaging shrubs from off the construction right-of-way [Section of the EPP]. Remove accumulated debris in a controlled and incremental manner to reduce the risk of flow surges, erosion and/or sedimentation of downstream areas. Remove or otherwise stabilize removed debris to prevent the debris from re-entering the watercourse/wetland/lake [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Grading Post signs, stakes or flag (including name, number and RK) a minimum of 100 m from each watercourse/wetland/lake or at the top of the approach slope (whichever is greater) following clearing to alert the Contractor of the upcoming watercourse/wetland/lakes [Section 6.0 and 8.2 of the EPP]. Equipment Fueling and Servicing Do not wash equipment or machinery in watercourses/wetlands/lakes. Control wastewater from construction activities, such as equipment washing or cement mixing, to avoid discharge directly into any body of water [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Do not perform concrete coating activities near a watercourse, wetland or lake unless suitable isolation from surface drainage and water sources is ensured [Section of the EPP]. Use non-toxic, biodegradable hydraulic fluids in all equipment that will work instream if/when flowing water will be encountered during construction or in watercourse/wetland/lakes if requested by the EI(s) [Section of the EPP]. Spill Response Employ the following measures to limit the risk of fuel spills in water. Where equipment refuelling is necessary within 100 m of a watercourse/wetland/lake, ensure that [Section 7.0 of the EPP]: all containers, hoses, nozzles are free of leaks; all fuel nozzles are equipped with automatic shut-offs; operators are stationed at both ends of the hose during fuelling unless the ends are visible and readily accessible by one operator; and fuel remaining in the hose is returned to the storage facility. General Watercourse Crossing Mitigation Measures Prevent construction materials and debris from entering watercourses [Section of the EPP]. Determine the presence of any aquatic or riparian plants and pests prior to the commencement of construction activities within the riparian buffer. Notify the Contractor of any special measures to be implemented to prevent the transfer of these organisms from one watercourse to another [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-17

89 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.2 Potential loss or See above See above Postpone instream water crossing construction if excessive flows or alteration of flood conditions are present or anticipated. Ensure that all spoil piles instream and/or are moved above the anticipated flood line. Resume activities when riparian habitat water levels have subsided or equipment/techniques suitable for from pipeline conditions are deployed [Section of the EPP]. construction Ensure that selected sites for temporary construction camps and (cont d) staging areas are located outside of riparian buffers [Section 9.0 of the EPP]. Permits and Approvals Contact the appropriate regulatory authority if a beaver dam removal is required during frozen soil conditions [Section of the EPP]. Water Quality Monitoring Monitor to assess the immediate effects of crossing construction, if warranted. Also monitor sediment release (i.e., turbidity and total suspended solids) throughout the crossing construction period, if required [Section of the EPP]. Where approval for removal of a beaver dam has been granted, remove/breach the dam slowly by physical means in order to avoid the rapid release of water, erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourse, downstream flooding and sedimentation as well as wash out of downstream beaver dams [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Breach the beaver dam slowly to avoid the rapid release of water that could cause erosion of the bed and banks as well as subsequent sedimentation of downstream waters [Section of the EPP]. Isolated Open Cut Crossings Construct the isolation dams of materials that meet the requirements of the applicable COP and Operational Statement conditions, and are approved by the Lead EI and EI(s). Earthen isolation dams are prohibited [Section of the EPP]. Implement applicable measures from the Fish Species of Concern Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) should fish species of concern be discovered during construction [Section of the EPP]. Dewater the segment of the watercourse between the dams, if feasible and safe to do so. Pump any sediment-laden water out between the dams to well-vegetated lands, away from the watercourse or to settling ponds [Section of the EPP]. Ensure that water from flumes, dam and pumps, diversion or other methods does not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel. If warranted, place rock rip rap, tarpaulins, plywood sheeting or other materials to control erosion at the outlet of pump hoses and flumes. Supplement the erosion control materials, if warranted, to control any erosion [Section of the EPP]. Salvage the upper 0.5 m (minimum) of clean, granular material, if present, and stockpile separately from the remainder of the trench spoil. Backfill the top of the trench with a minimum of 0.5m of clean, granular material where granular material was encountered in the trench. Where there is not sufficient clean, granular material or where salvage of the granular material is not practical to complete backfilling, non-native granular material can be used to cap the trench. All imported granular non-native material used for capping should be clean, washed granular material. This material must be obtained from offsite and not obtained from below the ordinary high water level of any watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Remove any accumulations of sediment within the isolation areas that resulted from crossing construction. Spread all sediment and unused trench spoil removed from the watercourse at a location above the high water mark where the materials will not directly re-enter the watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Ensure the EI(s) are present during dam removal/modification activities and prepare a monitoring report of the activities [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Page 7-18

90 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.2 Potential loss or See above See above Open Cut Crossings alteration of Ensure streamflow, if present, is maintained at all times when instream and/or trenching through a watercourse. Retain hard plugs at each bank until riparian habitat just prior to pipe installation. Install temporary soft plugs, where from pipeline necessary, to control water flow and trench sloughing. Ensure the construction trench is dewatered onto stable vegetated land and not directly into a (cont d) watercourse. Conduct work from both banks utilizing two backhoes, if necessary, to expedite the crossing (see Drawing [Watercourse Crossing Open Cut Method For Flowing Watercourses] in Appendix R of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Develop site-specific mitigation and/or reclamation plans where conditions or measures for a typical open cut water crossing (seasonally dry or frozen to the bottom), will not be in accordance with the Operational Statement for Isolated or Dry Open-cut Stream Crossings (DFO 2008b) in Alberta. Discussions with DFO will be conducted to identify preferred timing for instream work and to confirm whether a fish habitat compensation/offset plan will be required [Section of the EPP]. Trenchless Crossings Cease trenchless crossing work immediately and refer to the Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) in the event that an inadvertent release of drilling mud has occurred and the material is or may enter the watercourse or affect other sensitive environmental or land use features [Section of the EPP]. Monitor to assess the immediate effects of crossing construction, if warranted. Also monitor sediment release (i.e., turbidity and total suspended solids) throughout the crossing construction period, if required [Section of the EPP]. Vehicle Crossings Monitor temporary vehicle crossings to ensure that erosion control measures are adequate and streamflow is not disrupted [Section of the EPP]. Ensure streamflow, if present, is maintained under the vehicle crossing. Remove or breach snow or ice bridge to ensure they do not impede flow. Ensure that removal of access does not disturb the bed or banks of the watercourse crossing [Section of the EPP]. Locate vehicle crossings at straight and stable reaches of watercourses [Section of EPP]. Ensure temporary vehicle crossing structures do not disrupt fish passage at fish-bearing watercourses [Section of EPP]. Install the entire bridge including bridge abutments, footings and armouring above the high watermark of the watercourse unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities. Ensure bridge installation does not alter the stream bed or banks or require infilling of the channel [Section of EPP]. Create approaches to the water crossing perpendicular to the channel of the watercourse [Section of EPP]. Ensure stormwater from the bridge deck, side slopes and bridge approaches is directed away from the watercourse onto a well vegetated area [Section of EPP]. Remove bridge immediately after use. If bridge is to remain in place through spring break-up to access final clean-up, it must be designed for spring floods and ice jams. Remove support structures and approach fills. Re-establish and stabilize banks [Section of EPP]. Confine fording to periods of low flow when water depth will not impede passage of equipment [Section of EPP]. Install matting, where warranted, to protect the bed and banks of a watercourse to be forded [Section of EPP]. Page 7-19

91 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.2 Potential loss or See above See above Create a v-notch in the centre of the ice bridge or snow/ice fill prior to alteration of spring break up in order to allow the crossing to melt from the centre instream and/or and prevent blocking fish passage, channel erosion and flooding. riparian habitat Where feasible, remove compacted snow from the crossing rather from pipeline than creating a v-notch [Section of EPP]. construction Remove or breach snow or ice bridge to ensure streamflow is (cont d) maintained under the vehicle crossing. Ensure that removal of access does not disturb the bed or banks of the crossing. Ensure that equipment used during construction of the vehicle crossings is used in a manner that reduces disturbance of the bed and banks, and limits the risk of disrupting streamflow under the ice [Section of EPP]. Pressure Testing/Water Withdrawal Employ sediment reduction methods (e.g., sediment mat, sediment fence, sand bag, coffer dam, etc.), where warranted, to protect downstream fish, fish habitat and water users from increased sedimentation or reduced water quality where excavation of a sump in the substrate of the water source is necessary [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Ensure pump intakes are placed in a manner that reduces or avoids disturbance to the streambed and are screened in accordance with the DFO screening requirements, to prevent the entrapment of fish or wildlife (Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline (DFO 1995) [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Utilize screen pump intakes with a maximum mesh size of 2.54 mm and with a maximum approach velocity of m/s, where fish habitat is present [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Withdraw a maximum of 10% of the instantaneous stream flow at any given time if water extraction is necessary for the construction of a temporary crossing. Pump intakes are to not disturb the streambed. Pumps are to be screened with a maximum mesh size of 2.54 mm and should have a maximum screen approach velocity of less than m/s where fish habitat is present [Section of the EPP]. Maintain screens clear of debris [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. The withdrawal rate and volume will not exceed 10% of the flow rate of the watercourse or of the volume of the body of water unless otherwise approved by the appropriate authority when withdrawing water in Alberta. Avoid or reduce disturbance of the streambed when installing pump intakes [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Terminate or reduce the rate of water withdrawal if the approved minimum flow or depth of water in the source watercourse or lake is approached or reached during a water withdrawal, unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authority. Resume or increase the rate of water withdrawal only when flows or water levels exceed approved minimum values [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Implement additional mitigation in consultation with the appropriate regulatory authority in the event that water volumes exceed the allowable volumes and continued water withdrawal is allowed [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Dewater onto approved areas where water will be filtered through vegetation and soils before returning to a waterbody. Provide scour protection (e.g., use of rock aprons, plastic sheeting, plywood, straw bales etc.) or an energy diffuser (e.g., cone with baffles, frog s foot) at the discharge site as directed by Trans Mountain. The rate of discharge will be reduced if these measures are ineffective [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Clean-Up and Reclamation Follow site-specific reclamation or compensation/offset plans at select watercourse crossings, if deemed necessary, following confirmation of construction method and timing [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-20

92 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 1.2 Potential loss or See above See above Return the bed and banks of each crossing as close as feasible to alteration of their pre-construction contours (slope and height). Crossings should instream and/or not be realigned or straightened in any way nor have their hydraulic riparian habitat characteristics changed. Take appropriate measures to reduce the from pipeline risk of sloughing of the streambanks following construction. The EI(s) construction will determine on-site whether restoration measures in addition to (cont d) those identified in the environmental resource-specific mitigation tables for aquatic resources outlined in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B are required to stabilize the banks (e.g., soil wraps, brush layers, willow plantings and matting) and promote the restoration of the pre-construction conditions [Section of the EPP]. Install coir or other biodegradable erosion control fabric approved by the EI(s) on disturbed portions of the banks [Section of the EPP]. Install riprap bank armouring (see Drawing [Streambank Protection Cobble or Riprap Armouring] in Appendix R of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) along unstable banks with high erosion potential locations as outlined in the environmental resource-specific mitigation tables for aquatic resources provided in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section of the EPP]. Install vegetated soil wraps or cribwalls (see Drawings [Streambank Protection Cribwalls] and [Streambank Protection Typical Grass Roll] provided in Appendix R of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) along unstable banks with high erosion potential to reduce the risk of erosion and to enhance fish habitat at locations as outlined in the environmental resource-specific mitigation tables for aquatic resources provided in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section of the EPP]. 2 Fish mortality and injury 2.1 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction Edmonton to Hinton LSA General Construction Activities Permits and Approvals Ensure that any approvals, licenses and permits that may be necessary are in place prior to commencing applicable construction activities [Section 6.0 of EPP]. Notify the provincial DFO Area Biologist (see Appendix D of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) if instream blasting at water crossings to determine if approval is necessary [Section 4.0 of EPP]. Notify the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Impact Assessment Biologists a minimum of 14 days, prior to the commencement of water crossing construction, in accordance with the applicable Operational Statements. Refer to the Letters of Advice or Authorization, if applicable, to determine the advance notice required by DFO [Section 4.0 of EPP]. Work with regulatory authorities to determine the necessary approvals, licences and permits needed for a particular activity or construction site prior to the commencement of the applicable activity or construction at that site (see Appendix D of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B). Conditions of the applicable permits (including NEB Act approval, Alberta Water Act approval, DFO, the NEB, AESRD lands permits, and irrigation canal crossing agreements) will be met. Inconsistencies between conditions of different permits will be rectified prior to construction [Section 6.0 of the EPP]. Follow applicable DFO Operational Statements outlining conditions and measures to avoid serious harm to fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat when working in or near a waterbody that has been identified as providing fish habitat [Section of EPP]. Page 7-21

93 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 2.1 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above General Watercourse Crossing Mitigation Measures Adhere to water crossing requirements provided in environment resource-specific mitigation tables for aquatic resources provided in Appendix I of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Install pipeline and vehicle/equipment crossings at fish-bearing watercourse crossings (outside the RAP for proposed crossings in Alberta), unless otherwise specified in Appendix I of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section of the EPP]. Determine the presence of any aquatic or riparian plants and pests prior to the commencement of construction activities within the riparian buffer. Notify the Contractor of any special measures to be implemented to prevent the transfer of these organisms from one watercourse to another [Section of the EPP]. Postpone instream water crossing construction if excessive flows or flood conditions are present or anticipated. Ensure that all spoil piles are moved above the anticipated flood line. Resume activities when water levels have subsided or equipment/techniques suitable for conditions are deployed [Section of the EPP]. Limit instream construction to the shortest duration practical given the characteristics of the watercourse and the construction season [Section of the EPP]. Review and adhere to applicable instream timing constraints (RAP/least risk biological window) and all resource-specific measures outlined in the mitigation tables for aquatic resources provided in Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B [Section of the EPP]. Isolated Open Cut Crossings Schedule water crossing construction activities to allow for fish salvage to occur prior to dewatering [Section of the EPP]. Notify the Lead EI and the EI(s) 72 hours prior to construction of any watercourse crossing or installation of isolation dams, diversions to ensure fish salvage operations are conducted, where warranted [Section of the EPP]. Determine if permits from appropriate regulatory authorities are necessary before conducting a fish salvage prior to and during diversions and trenching at isolated water crossings [Section of the EPP]. Assign a QAES to salvage fish from the isolated area prior to and during dewatering and trenching at isolated water crossings in accordance with the Fish Research License in Alberta if the permit is determined to be necessary. Note that the application for a Fish Research License is to be submitted 10 working days (minimum) prior to the scheduled isolation of the watercourse. Release all captured fish to suitable habitat [Section of the EPP]. Confirm with the EI that a QAES with a Fish Research License will be on-site to conduct the fish salvage before and during dewatering between the isolation dams [Section of the EPP]. Complete fish rescue on all isolated watercourse crossings with flowing water and as identified in Aquatic Resources (Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) prior to the start of pipeline installation in a watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Salvage fish in fish-bearing wetlands prior to dewatering the isolated section of the wetland [Section of the EPP]. Release captured fish to areas downstream of the crossing that provide suitable habitat [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-22

94 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 2.1 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Trenchless Crossings Ensure that water from dewatering entry and exit sites with a high sediment load is not discharged or allowed to flow into any watercourse/wetland/lake. Remove the sediment (e.g., filter or discharge into a vegetated area) before water is allowed to enter any watercourse/wetland/lake [Section of the EPP]. Cease trenchless crossing work immediately and refer to the Drilling Mud Release Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) in the event that an inadvertent release of drilling mud has occurred and the material is or may enter the watercourse or affect other sensitive environmental or land use features [Section of the EPP]. Monitor to assess the immediate effects of crossing construction, where warranted. Also monitor sediment release (i.e., turbidity and total suspended solids) throughout the crossing construction period, when warranted in accordance with the monitoring measures provided in the Water Crossing Construction Monitoring Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Locate bell holes and entry and exit sites back from the high watermark and far enough from the wetland to provide containment of sediments and other deleterious substances above the high watermark. Vegetation removal for the bellholes and entry and exit sites is only to occur within the approved construction right-of-way and workspace [Section of the EPP]. Ensure that water from dewatering bellholes and drill entry and exit sites with a high sediment load is not discharged or allowed to flow into the wetland. Remove the sediment load (e.g., filter or discharge into a vegetated area) before discharge water enters the wetland [Section of the EPP]. Follow the drilling mud frac-out monitoring and other measures provided in the Horizontal Directional Drilling/Trenchless Planning and Procedures Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) during an HDD [Section of the EPP]. Vehicle Crossings Adhere to the instream works reduced risk-timing window when fording in watercourses where water is present [Section of EPP]. Create a v-notch in the centre of the ice bridge or snow/ice fill prior to spring break up in order to allow the crossing to melt from the centre and prevent blocking fish passage, channel erosion and flooding. Where feasible, remove compacted snow from the crossing rather than creating a v-notch [Section of EPP]. Ensure temporary vehicle crossing structures do not disrupt fish passage at fish-bearing watercourses [Section of the EPP]. Use closed bottom structures (i.e., culverts) to provide temporary vehicle access at non-fish-bearing watercourses, or on fish-bearing watercourses within a defined non-fish-bearing reach. Ensure compliance with all respective provincial guidelines (e.g., COP in Alberta) when installing closed bottom structures [Section of the EPP]. Do not obtain rock to be used in the construction of aprons to be installed or repaired at culvert inlets or outlets from the normal high watermark of a watercourse/wetland/lake. Place rocks at a slope similar to the culvert and channel in a manner that will not interfere with fish passage or constrict the channel width [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Schedule culvert maintenance to commence within the least risk biological window or outside of the applicable RAP (see Appendix I of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) unless otherwise approved by the appropriate regulatory authority [Section 9.0 of EPP]. Page 7-23

95 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 2.1 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction (cont d) 2.2 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction See above See above Ensure that test water withdrawn from one drainage basin will not enter surface waters in another drainage basin [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Determine which applicable regulatory authority approvals are necessary for water withdrawal and discharge to allow for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and to ensure conditions of approvals are satisfied during water withdrawal for hydrostatic testing [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Ensure that any approvals, licenses and permits that are necessary are in place prior to commencing applicable hydrostatic testing activities [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Discharge locations will be preferentially selected to dewater onto stable terrain areas rather than directly into a watercourse/wetland/lake where the water will be filtered through vegetation and soils prior to returning to a watercourse/wetland/lake. Locations for dewatering will be into bar ditches, if feasible, or onto non-arable lands. Sediment reduction methods will be implemented on the bed, banks and approaches to the water source or discharge site, if warranted, to protect downstream fish, fish habitat and water users from increased sedimentation or reduced water quality. Discharge locations will be monitored to ensure that no erosion, flooding or icing occurs [Section 11.0 of the EPP]. Pressure Testing/Water Withdrawal Ensure that test water withdrawn from one drainage basin will not enter surface waters in another drainage basin [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Determine which applicable regulatory authority approvals are necessary for water withdrawal and discharge to allow for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and to ensure conditions of approvals are satisfied during water withdrawal for hydrostatic testing [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Ensure that any approvals, licenses and permits that are necessary are in place prior to commencing applicable hydrostatic testing activities [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Discharge locations will be preferentially selected to dewater onto stable terrain areas rather than directly into a watercourse/wetland/lake where the water will be filtered through vegetation and soils prior to returning to a watercourse/wetland/lake. Locations for dewatering will be into bar ditches, if feasible, or onto non-arable lands. Sediment reduction methods will be implemented on the bed, banks and approaches to the water source or discharge site, if warranted, to protect downstream fish, fish habitat and water users from increased sedimentation or reduced water quality. Discharge locations will be monitored to ensure that no erosion, flooding or icing occurs [Section 11.0 of the EPP]. Clean-Up and Reclamation Clean equipment following water crossing construction and bank reclamation work to ensure the equipment does not transfer soil, debris, invasive plants or aquatic pests (e.g., Myxobolus cerebralis the parasite that causes whirling disease in fish) to other watercourses [Section of the EPP]. Follow site-specific reclamation or compensation/offset plans at select watercourse crossings, if deemed necessary, following confirmation of construction method and timing [Section of the EPP]. Edmonton to Hinton Footprint Study Area General Construction Activities Permits and Approvals Prohibit recreational fishing by Project personnel on or in the vicinity of the construction right-of-way. The use of the construction right-of-way to access fishing sites is prohibited [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Page 7-24

96 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 2.2 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Abide by the conditions, including the 14 day notification period, of the DFO s Operational Statement for Beaver Dam removal during open water conditions or, following a case-specific review, the Letter of Advice for removal of a beaver dam during frozen soil conditions in Alberta. Where approval for removal of a beaver dam has been granted, remove/breach the dam slowly by physical means in order to avoid the rapid release of water, erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourse, downstream flooding and siltation as well as wash out of downstream beaver dams. The preservation of water quality baseline parameters (e.g., turbidity, dissolved oxygen) will be maintained downstream of locations where beaver dams have been breached [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Where approval for removal of a beaver dam has been granted, remove/breach the dam slowly by physical means in order to avoid the rapid release of water, erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourse, downstream flooding and sedimentation as well as wash out of downstream beaver dams [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Follow applicable DFO Operational Statements outlining conditions and measures to avoid serious harm to fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat when working in or near a waterbody that has been identified as providing fish habitat [Section of EPP]. Clearing Prohibit the use of herbicides within 30 m of a watercourse/wetland/lake unless otherwise approved by Trans Mountain s EI(s) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Grading Install erosion control measures, where warranted, prior to commencing grading in the vicinity of water crossings [Section 8.2 of the EPP]. Grade away from watercourses and wetlands to reduce the risk of introduction of soil and organic debris. Do not place windrowed or fill material in watercourses or wetlands during grading. Keep wetland soils separate from upland soils [Section 8.2 of the EPP]. Erosion and Sediment Control Install a temporary sediment barrier (e.g., sediment fences), where warranted, to eliminate the flow of sediment from spoil piles and disturbed areas into nearby watercourses/wetlands/lakes (see Drawing [Sediment Fence] in Appendix R of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Inspect temporary sediment control structures (e.g., sediment fences, subsoil berms) installed on approach slopes, on a daily basis throughout crossing construction. Repair the structures, if warranted, before the end of the working day [Section of the EPP]. Install permanent erosion control measures, as outlined in the Reclamation Management Plan (see Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) unless otherwise approved by Trans Mountain to adjust for site conditions and suitability [Section of the EPP]. Equipment Fueling and Servicing Wash all equipment transferred between sub-basins to ensure that aquatic pests are not transferred [Section of the EPP]. Do not wash equipment or machinery in watercourses/wetlands/lakes. Control wastewater from construction activities, such as equipment washing or cement mixing, to avoid discharge directly into any body of water [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Use non-toxic, biodegradable hydraulic fluids in all equipment that will work instream if/when flowing water will be encountered during construction in wetland and/or lakes if requested by the EI(s) [Section of the EPP]. Do not perform concrete coating activities near a watercourse/wetland/lake unless suitable isolation from surface drainage and water sources is ensured [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-25

97 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 2.2 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Spill Response Employ the following measures to limit the risk of fuel spills in water. Where equipment refuelling is necessary within 100 m of a watercourse/wetland/lake, ensure that [Section 7.0 of the EPP]: all containers, hoses, nozzles are free of leaks; all fuel nozzles are equipped with automatic shut-offs; operators are stationed at both ends of the hose during fuelling unless the ends are visible and readily accessible by one operator; and fuel remaining in the hose is returned to the storage facility. Ensure that during construction no fuel, lubricating fluids, hydraulic fluids, methanol, antifreeze, herbicides, biocides, or other chemicals are dumped on the ground or into watercourses/wetlands/lakes. In the event of a spill, implement the Spill Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Report spills immediately to the EI(s) who will, if warranted, notify Environmental Compliance Manager for reporting to the appropriate regulatory authorities in accordance with the Spill Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. General Watercourse Crossing Mitigation Measures Where approval for removal of a beaver dam has been granted, remove/breach the dam slowly by physical means in order to avoid the rapid release of water, erosion of the bed and banks of the watercourse, downstream flooding and sedimentation as well as wash out of downstream beaver dams [Section 7.0 of the EPP]. Breach the beaver dam slowly to avoid the rapid release of water that could cause erosion of the bed and banks and subsequent sedimentation of downstream waters [Section of the EPP]. Water Quality Monitoring Monitor to assess the immediate effects of crossing construction, where warranted. Also monitor sediment release (i.e., turbidity and total suspended solids) throughout the crossing construction period, when warranted [Section of the EPP]. Isolated Open Cut Crossings Assign a QAES to salvage fish from the isolated area prior to and during dewatering and trenching at isolated water crossings in accordance with the Fish Research License in Alberta if the permit is determined to be necessary. Note that the application for a Fish Research License is to be submitted 10 working days (minimum) prior to the scheduled isolation of the watercourse. Release all captured fish to suitable habitat [Section of the EPP]. Ensure fish are rescued from any temporarily or permanently abandoned reach of channel that is free of debris [Section of the EPP]. Clean fish salvage equipment (e.g., waders, boots, nets) of soil, and disinfect with 100 mg/l chlorine bleach before using in any watercourse to prevent the spread of pathogens (e.g., whirling disease) and/or invasive plant species. Ensure that washed off soil is disposed of at a location that will prevent the reintroduction of these untreated materials into a watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Ensure all water intakes are screened in accordance with the DFO s Freshwater End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline (1995). Ensure the screens are free of debris during pumping [Section of the EPP]. Page 7-26

98 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 2.2 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Ensure that pump intakes avoid or reduce disturbance of the streambed and are screened with a maximum mesh size of 2.54 mm and sized to limit the approach velocity to not exceed m/s. To accomplish this, where pumps larger than 15 cm diameter are used, place the intakes in a mesh cage (2.54 mm) to reduce the approach velocity that fish are exposed to and prevent them from being impinged on the intake. Refer to DFO s Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline (DFO 1995) for additional information [Section of the EPP]. Construct the isolation dams of materials that meet the requirements of the applicable COP and Operational Statement conditions, and are approved by the Lead EI and EI(s). Earthen isolation dams are prohibited [Section of the EPP]. Implement applicable measures from the Fish Species of Concern Contingency Plan (see Appendix B of the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) should fish species of concern be discovered during construction [Section of the EPP]. Dewater the segment of the watercourse between the dams, if feasible and safe to do so. Pump any sediment-laden water out between the dams to well-vegetated lands, away from the watercourse or to settling ponds [Section of the EPP]. Ensure that water from flumes, dam and pumps, diversion or other methods does not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel. If warranted, place rock rip rap, tarpaulins, plywood sheeting or other materials to control erosion at the outlet of pump hoses and flumes. Supplement the erosion control materials, if warranted, to control any erosion [Section of the EPP]. Ensure maintenance of downstream flow conditions (i.e., quantity and quality) at all times when constructing an isolated crossing. If a pump-around method is used to maintain downstream flow, back-up pumping capacity must be onsite and ready to take over pumping immediately if operating pumps fail. Pumps are to be continuously monitored to ensure flow is maintained at all times until the dam materials are removed and normal flow is restored to the channel [Section of the EPP]. Ensure that isolation bypass water maintains downstream flow and does not cause erosion or introduce sediment into the channel. Methods and options for preventing erosion include: flow dissipaters; protection of the substrate with geotextile; releasing water onto vegetation; and strategically placing erosion control mats immediately adjacent to the watercourse [Section of the EPP]. Open Cut Crossings Ensure streamflow, if present, is maintained at all times when trenching through a watercourse. Retain hard plugs at each bank until just prior to pipe installation. Install temporary soft plugs, where necessary, to control water flow and trench sloughing. Ensure the trench is dewatered onto stable vegetated land and not directly into a watercourse. Conduct work from both banks utilizing two backhoes, if necessary, to expedite the crossing (see Drawing [Watercourse Crossing Open Cut Method for Flowing Watercourses] in Appendix R of Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B) [Section of the EPP]. Trenchless Crossings Monitor to assess the immediate effects of crossing construction, if warranted. Also monitor sediment release (i.e., turbidity and total suspended solids) throughout the crossing construction period, if required [Section of the EPP]. Pressure Testing/Water Withdrawal Employ sediment reduction methods (e.g., sediment mat, sediment fence, sand bag, coffer dam, etc.), where warranted, to protect downstream fish, fish habitat and water users from increased sedimentation or reduced water quality where excavation of a sump in the substrate of the water source is necessary [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Page 7-27

99 TABLE 7.1 Cont d Potential Effect Pipeline Segment Spatial Boundary Key Recommendations/Mitigation Measures [Section Where Mitigation Located in the Pipeline EPP of Volume 6B] 2.2 Potential for injury or mortality of fish during pipeline construction (cont d) See above See above Ensure pump intakes are placed in a manner that reduces or avoids disturbance to the streambed and are screened in accordance with the DFO screening requirements, to prevent the entrapment of fish or wildlife (Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline [DFO 1995]) [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Utilize screen pump intakes with a maximum mesh size of 2.54 mm and with a maximum approach velocity of m/s, where fish habitat is present [Section 8.5 of the EPP]. Do not exceed the provincial or federal water quality limits (e.g., CCME 2007) of the water quality of wash or other water discharged from a borrow site directly into a watercourse/wetland/lake that supports fish or provides fish habitat [Section 11.0 of the EPP] Watercourse Reclamation Strategy The primary objective of watercourse reclamation is to stabilize the channel and re-establish both the morphology and integrity of each watercourse to a similar condition that existed prior to construction. At select watercourses, additional reclamation measures (habitat improvements beyond its pre-construction condition) may be required. These reclamation measures will be addressed in a separate compensation/offset plan. Reclamation measures presented in Table 7.2 (i.e., A to G) have been designed to accommodate the range of different watercourses found along the proposed pipeline corridor. Standard reclamation measures that must be applied to all watercourses are also identified in the Watercourse Crossing Summary Table (Appendix A) presents all watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline corridor, along with a list of construction measures designed to protect the integrity of the stream channel and to reestablish aquatic habitat at each crossing location. Site-specific reclamation plans may be developed for the larger high sensitivity watercourse crossings. These watercourses are expected to be of particular interest to regulatory authorities, given the complexity and sensitivity of these areas and/or the probability of serious harm to fishes or their habitat. TABLE 7.2 WATERCOURSE RECLAMATION MEASURES Reclamation Method Reclamation Measures Application Criteria Standard Procedures for all Watercourses Prior to Instream Work Identify any instream site-specific features at the crossing proposed and record their location (e.g., root wad, large woody debris and large boulders). Salvage these for use later. During Instream Work Salvage upper coarse-textured substrate material from the channel and banks, and stockpile separately from lower substrate. At the Completion of Instream Work Return the watercourse (or wetland) bed and banks to their preconstruction configuration and alignment. Cap disturbed area of the channel and banks with salvaged substrate and extend replacement of cobbles and boulders to the ordinary high water level (OHWL) if adequate material is available. Standard procedures that apply to all watercourses listed in Appendix A Watercourse Crossing Summary Table. Page 7-28

100 TABLE 7.2 Cont'd Reclamation Method Reclamation Measures Application Criteria Standard Replace any site-specific features that are important for fishes or Procedures for all other aquatic organisms (i.e., as initially salvaged or as part of Watercourses compensation/offset directed by Trans Mountain s EI). (cont d) Install the appropriate temporary erosion and sediment control measures, where warranted (e.g., sediment fence, erosion control blanket, coir logs, etc.). Seed with an appropriate grass mix and/or cover crop species as directed in the Reclamation Management Plan for the Project. Type A Recontour bed and banks/approach slopes to pre-construction profiles and grades. Type B Salvage dormant riparian vegetation along the trench line (and vehicle crossing locations, where grading is required), keeping roots intact (i.e., with a sufficient soil root-ball). Store salvaged dormant plants and plant material away from construction activities for replacement or installation during reclamation. Replace salvaged dormant riparian plants and plant material (stakes and brush) during reclamation (Appendix E, Drawing 1). Install rooted stock shrubs/trees and/or dormant tree/shrub stakes/brush in disturbed riparian areas to stabilize soils, reduce sedimentation and accelerate vegetation recovery (Appendix E, Drawing 1). Type C Recontour banks using salvaged bank material and install erosion control blanket and/or coir logs as required (Appendix E, Drawing 2). Install rooted stock plant shrubs/trees and/or dormant shrub stakes/brush in disturbed riparian areas to stabilize soils, reduce sedimentation and accelerate woody vegetation recovery (Appendix E, Drawing 1). Coir soil wrap(s) with dormant brush/stake layering may be used for added bank integrity and to create overhanging vegetation (Appendix E, Drawing 3). Type D Recontour banks using salvaged bank material and install erosion control blanket and/or coir logs as required (Appendix E, Drawing 2). If required, install rip-rap base below OHWL, keyed in to bed and underlain with filter cloth or gravel layer. Install coir soil wrap(s) above the OHWL (Appendix E, Drawing 3) or log crib structure made from natural logs may be used at the base of the bank (below the OHWL) if appropriate (may be a single log in height, typically a minimum of two logs are used) (Appendix E, Drawing 4). Install rooted stock shrubs/trees and/or dormant shrub/tree stakes in disturbed riparian areas to stabilize soils, reduce sedimentation and accelerate woody vegetation recovery (Appendix E, Drawing 1). Type E Recreate banks using log crib structures made of natural logs (may be a single log in height, typically a minimum of two logs are used) (Appendix E, Drawing 4) or install rip-rap keyed in to bed and underlain with filter cloth or gravel layer, if required. Supplement with salvaged bank material, as required. Install rooted stock shrubs/trees and/or dormant shrub/tree stakes in disturbed riparian areas to stabilize soils, reduce sedimentation and accelerate woody vegetation recovery (Appendix E, Drawing 1). See above. For shallow or poorly defined channels, including NCDs with low or gently sloping banks (e.g., intermittent or seasonal watercourses with low flow or standing water, including small ponds). For shallow or poorly defined channels with low or gently sloping banks and where riparian vegetation and bank material can be salvaged for use in channel reconstruction (e.g., intermittent or seasonal watercourses with low flow or standing water, including small ponds). For watercourses with low to moderate flow, with vertical or steeply sloping banks up to 0.3 m high and where the channel and base of the banks can be recontoured using cobble or boulder substrate. Install erosion control blanket and/or coir logs above the OHWL or riparian vegetation that will not be wetted by stream flows for prolonged periods. For watercourses with low to moderate flow, with vertical or steeply sloping banks between m high and where the channel and base of the banks can be recontoured using cobble or boulder substrate. Where multiple tiers of grass rolls are required and will not be wetted by stream flows for prolonged periods. Also for use where brush/stake layering between grass rolls and coir soil wrap(s) is required to provided overhanging vegetation. Use of log crib structures is appropriate for watercourses with low flow that have a vertical or undercut bank up to 1 m high and where erosion from flow along the base of the bank needs to be mitigated. These watercourses are typically adjacent flood margins with flat or low gradient. This method is also suitable for channels with lower bank heights, adjacent culverts or constrained flows. Cover for fishes is provided by the transplanted shrubs/trees or shrub staking. Log crib structures are not recommended in steeper cobble/boulder systems subject to high velocity seasonal flows found in interior BC. Page 7-29

101 TABLE 7.2 Cont'd Reclamation Method Reclamation Measures Application Criteria Type F Recreate banks using log crib structures made of natural logs (typically a minimum of two logs is used) (Appendix E, Drawing 4) or install rip-rap keyed in to bed and underlain with filter cloth or gravel layer. Supplement with salvaged bank material, as required. Install coir soil wrap(s) with dormant brush/stake layering above log crib or rip-rap (Appendix E, Drawing 3). Install rooted stock shrubs/trees and/or dormant shrub/tree stakes in disturbed riparian areas to stabilize soils, reduce sedimentation and accelerate woody vegetation recovery (Appendix E, Drawing 1). Type G Recontour bed and banks using native cobble and boulder armouring to the OHWL (Appendix E, Drawing 5). Supplement with locally obtained rip-rap if required to stabilize banks. Install rooted stock shrubs/trees and/or dormant shrub/tree stakes in disturbed riparian areas to stabilize soils, reduce sedimentation and accelerate woody vegetation recovery Appendix E, Drawing 1). For watercourses with moderate to high flow that have a vertical or undercut bank > 1 m high and where erosion from flow along the base of the bank needs to be mitigated. Used where steeper flood margins extend from the top of the bank. This method is also suitable for channels with lower bank heights, adjacent culverts or constrained flows. Cover for fishes is provided by the brush/stake layering between the coir soil wraps, rooted shrubs/trees and/or shrub/tree staking. For larger watercourses subject to high seasonal flows or watercourses with a steep (> 5%) gradient and bed/banks comprised of large cobbler or boulder substrate. Usually in watercourses that experience high flow conditions Post-Construction Monitoring Post-construction monitoring will be required to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented to counter the predicted adverse environmental effects of the Project. Specific post-construction monitoring programs may also be a regulatory requirement for watercourse crossings authorized under the Fisheries Act or as approval conditions for potential compensation/offset plans. Additionally, should an unanticipated environmental effect occur post-construction or if additional maintenance and integrity work is required, additional assessment work may also be obligatory. Post-construction monitoring plans shall include inspections, assessments of riparian vegetation survival rates, assessments of instream habitat stability and effectiveness of compensation/offset works to enhance or create fish habitat. Page 7-30

102 8.0 SUMMARY The Project is comprised of multiple components, including the proposed pipeline corridor, pump stations and ancillary facilities. Within Alberta, however, TMEP s proposed pipeline corridor in the Edmonton to Hinton Segment is the Project s only component that meets the NEB s criteria for detailed assessment (NEB 2013a). Desktop analysis and field reconnaissance focused within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment resulted in the identification of 202 locations where the assessment of fish habitat potential and use was expected to be required for regulatory review. Aquatic habitat at these locations was assessed for fish habitat potential and use during the flowing and frozen water seasons in 2012 and Field results were supplemented with existing fisheries information, where available. Of the 202 potential crossings, access was permitted for site visits and/or suitable existing information was reviewed for 185 locations. Results of the fish and fish habitat assessments confirmed that: 56 of the 185 aquatic habitats assessed were determined to be fish-bearing; and 28 of the 185 aquatic habitats assessed were determined to be of High sensitivity for species of management concern. Supplemental studies are proposed for 17 potential crossings not previously assessed on behalf of the Project and where insufficient existing information was located. In the interim, however, these potential crossings were defaulted to fish-bearing status and considered to be High sensitivity habitat for species of management concern. Supplemental studies are also proposed for select crossings where additional information is still needed for regulatory submission and/or to complete habitat assessments, and where additional potential crossings of fish habitat result from subsequent project design phases. It is proposed that trenchless pipeline construction methods will be used at 5 of the 202 crossings within the Edmonton to Hinton Segment. Trenched pipeline construction methods are proposed for the remaining 197 crossings. Recommended temporary vehicle and equipment crossings range from the use of existing crossing structures to the installation of new clear span bridges, snowfill/ice bridges (where possible), culverts, logfills or suitable and approved alternatives. Appropriate mitigation for pipeline construction and operation activities associated with the proposed pipeline corridor were developed with reference to industry standards and professional experience. Mitigation measures provided include a recommended Least Risk Biological Window for which construction timing is least likely to influence fish and fish habitat. Similarly, recommended reclamation measures were prescribed to provide guidance to EI staff during the construction and reclamation phases of the Project. The fish and fish habitat assessments detailed in this report were completed to satisfy the requirements of clause (a) in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (GOA 2013a) and Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (GOA 2013b), as well as to satisfy the requirements for fish and fish habitat element, as outlined in Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2013a). TERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Greg Eisler Senior Aquatics Specialist - Associate Page 8-1