Application for Construction and Operation of the Pierceland Supply Project Response to CER Information Request No

Application for Construction and Operation of the Pierceland Supply Project Response to CER Information Request No. 1

File: OF-Fac-Gas-M182-2019-02 01

February 3, 2020

Prepared for:

Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Limited (MIPL(C)L)

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS ...... III

CONSULTATION MATTERS ...... 1 Question 1.1: Indigenous Consultation ...... 1 Question 1.2: General Consultation Update ...... 4

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC MATTERS ...... 10 Question 1.3: Environmental Protection Plan...... 10 Question 1.4: Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment ...... 11

LAND MATTERS ...... 13 Question 1.5: Project Route Selection Process ...... 13 Question 1.6: Land Acquisition and Routing Update ...... 17

ENVIRONMENT MATTERS ...... 21 Question 1.7: Vegetation ...... 21 Question 1.8: Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 22 Question 1.9: Wetlands ...... 24 Question 1.10: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 27 Question 1.11: Species at Risk (SAR) ...... 28

ENGINEERING MATTERS ...... 32 Question 1.12: New Edition of CSA Z662 ...... 32

LIST OF TABLES Table 6-1 Explanation of Sketches Illustrating Points of Route Revision ...... 20 Table 1.9-1Class, Location and Disturbance for Wetlands in the PDA ...... 26 Table 1.11-1 Conservation Status and General Habitat Association of Wildlife Species at Risk and Species of Management Concern Observed in the LAA during 2019 Surveys ...... 31 Table 12-1 Pierceland Supply Project – Concordance Table for Project Designed to CSA Z662-2015 and CSA Z662-2019 ...... 33

LIST OF APPENDICES

ATTACHMENT 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

ATTACHMENT 2 SUPPLEMENTAL FIELD SUMMARY REPORT .. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

ATTACHMENT 3 INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP PLANS (RE-ROUTES) ..... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

ATTACHMENT 4 ENGAGEMENT TRACKING SHEET ..ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

ATTACHMENT 5 LAND ACQUISTION AND ROUTING UPDATE LINE LIST ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

ATTACHMENT 6 CSA Z662-2019 CONCORDANCE TABLE ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

ATTACHMENT 7 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL FILING ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Abbreviations

ACO Aboriginal Consultation Office

CER Canada Energy Regulator (formerly NEB)

CLFN Cold Lake First Nation

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CSA Canadian Standards Association

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada

EPP Environmental Protection Plan

ESA Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment

HDD Horizontal Direction Drill

IOP Individual Ownership Plan

IR Information Request

LAA local assessment area

MIPL or MIPL(C)L Many Islands Pipe Lines (Canada) Limited

MLL Millennium Land Ltd.

MNS Metis Nation Saskatchewan

NEB National Energy Board

NGTL Nova Gas Transmission Limited

PDA project development area

RATW Restricted Activity Timing Window

ROW Right-of-Way

TWS Temporary Workspace

iii

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020

CONSULTATION MATTERS

Question 1.1: Indigenous Consultation

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project OAS Application, Page 5 (PDF Page 5 of 10) A6V2D6 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part Engagement Rev1, Page 8 of 11 (PDF Page 11 of 15), A99944-20 iii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Appendix E – E.1 Engagement Tracking Redacte, PDF pages 62-67 of 67, A99944-16 iv) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part Engagement Rev1, Page 11 of 11 (PDF Page 14 of 15), A99944-20

Preamble:

Reference i) indicates that consultation activities with Indigenous communities were designed and implemented for the Project.

In reference ii), MIPL(C)L indicated that notifications were provided to those communities identified that may be impacted or have been identified through a traditional territory analysis. MIPL(C)L also stated that one of the First Nation communities has requested further discussions on the Project and that MIPL(C)L is continuing to communicate with this community.

In reference iii), MIPL(C)L provides a consultation log with Indigenous communities up to 15 April 2019.

In reference iv), MIPL(C)L confirmed the engagement process is still ongoing.

Request:

Provide the following: a) the name of the community to which MIPL(C)L is referring in reference ii); b) an itemized table on the consultation activities related to this Project that have occurred with all communities, including the community identified in a), since the Application filing including, but not limited to: descriptions of the activities, the dates of the activities, and the methods of contact (e.g. telephone call, email, or in-person meeting);

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020 c) a detailed description of the concerns or any site-specific information provided by the community identified in a); d) a detailed description of concerns or any site specific information provided by any of the identified Indigenous communities; and e) a description of how MIPL(C)L has addressed or will address any issues or concerns raised to the extent possible, or an explanation as to why no further action is required to address the issues or concerns.

Response 1.1

a) Beaver Lake Cree Nation was the First Nation community that had requested additional information. Refer to the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet (Attachment 4) for further details.

b) Refer to the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet for details. The “Updated Since June 2019 NEB Filing” column identifies engagement activities undertaken post-filing.

c) The following summarizes the information provided to the Beaver Lake Cree Nation and their concerns:

a. February 28, 2019 – MIPL(C)L provided the Project Description and Proposed Pierceland Supply Project Consultation Program Map via fax and original hardcopy was sent via mail.

b. March 7, 2019 – Beaver Lake Cree Nation sent an email requesting a legible Project map as the fax wasn’t legible.

c. April 15, 2019 - Beaver Lake Cree Nation sent an email requesting a meeting with MIPL(C)L to review the project and establish a budget for the initial consultation.

d. April 16, 2019 – MIPL(C)L provided a copy of the Project Description and Proposed Pierceland Supply Project Consultation Program Map to supplied email address.

e. May 30, 2019 – MIPL(C)L responded to the meeting request with an email suggesting a phone call to further discuss the Project. No response has been received from the Beaver Lake Cree Nation.

f. June 2019 to January 10, 2020 – ongoing Project engagement with Beaver Lake Cree Nation including general project updates. Refer to the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet for further details.

d) Engagement activities with some of the Indigenous groups that have expressed an interest in the Project are ongoing – refer to the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet for details. No further

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020

concerns have been registered with MIPL(C)L, however, some site-specific queries and requests have been received from the various groups, and MIPL(C)L has responded to those requests.

The following summarizes the Indigenous groups that have registered queries / requests:

a. Big Island Cree Nation: Big Island Cree Nation expressed interest in opportunities to provide construction services, specifically tree clearing and access road construction.

b. Metis Nation Saskatchewan and Metis Nation Saskatchewan – Western Region I: Both groups were provided the Project Summary Letter by the NEB (18-Jul-2019). Both groups requested an extension to comment on the Project from the CER. On October 17, 2019 comments were provided to the CER, stating that the Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment (ESA) summary and Interactions Table were considered sufficient. Requests included notification of any Project updates, particularly with regards to environmental matters, noting any further involvement would require capacity funding.

c. Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN): The CLFN registered a concern with the NEB (CER) about the combined potential impacts of this Project and the NGTL Saddle Lake Lateral Loop Project. The main concern from CLFN is that they are unable to validate how their Traditional Lands and Resource Use have been assessed without the ESA available for review. Capacity funding is requested to support preparation of a Traditional Land Study. As well, on January 28, 2020, CLFN wrote to MIPL(C)L asking for different versions of maps as well as providing an invitation to meet with their Access Committee.

e) Below is a description of how MIPL(C)L has addressed (or plans to address) the queries / issues that have been raised by the various Indigenous groups. Any future concerns that may arise outside of the ones identified, will be addressed independently by MIPL(C)L.

a. Big Island Cree Nation: MIPL(C)L continues to connect with Big Island Cree Nation to find a mutually agreeable date to connect to discuss the Project and potential working opportunities. The intent is to follow MIPL(C)L’s procurement process.

b. Metis Nation Saskatchewan / Metis Nation Saskatchewan – Western Region I: MIPL(C)L has responded to all letters received and has committed to providing Project updates. In addition, MIPL(C)L has offered that it would be prepared to assist an application by these communities for capacity funding to support the ESA review or utilize resources within the Metis Nation Saskatchewan community during execution of the Project. A meeting with the Metis Nation Saskatchewan has been set up for February 4, 2020.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020

c. Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN): MIPL(C)L has committed to updating the ESA for this Project with the anticipated cumulative effects of both projects (including the NGTL Saddle Lake Lateral Loop Project). The ESA has been requested by the CER (IR#1 – question 1.4) and MIPL(C)L will provide CLFN a copy of the ESA. Three options to support CLFN request for capacity have been provided, with response pending from CLFN. MIPL(C)L is also preparing a response to a new January 28, 2020 correspondence from CLFN, requesting a mapping update, requesting a meet with their Access Committee, and providing a proposed consultation budget. Refer to the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet for additional details.

d. Thunderchild First Nation and Red Pheasant First Nation: In light of MIPL(C)L’s operating experience, the nature of the potential effects of the Project, and the interests of potentially affected Indigenous groups; MIP(C)L, Red Pheasant First Nation and Thunderchild First Nation entered into benefits and consultants agreement to employ monitors and elders in relation to construction activities.

Question 1.2: General Consultation Update

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project OAS Application, Pages 5 and 6 (PDF Pages 5 and 6 of 10), A6V2D6 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 5 Engagement Rev 1, (PDF page 13 of 15), A99944- 20 iii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Appendix E – E.1 Engagement Tracking Redacte, (PDF pages 16, 23, 28, 33, 36, 40, and 46-49 of 67), A99944-16 iv) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 5 Engagement Rev 1, (PDF page 9 of 15), A99944-20

Preamble:

In reference i), MIPL(C)L indicates that a consultation program was designed and implemented for the Project with landowners, nearby residents, affected land or waterway users, affected municipalities, and provincial government authorities.

In reference ii), MIPL(C)L states that concerns were raised during the engagement efforts by landowners, lessees and occupants.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020

In reference iii), MIPL(C)L indicates that in consultation with various landowners, concerns have been raised but the Commission notes there does not appear to be corresponding information on how these concerns have been addressed or will be addressed.

MIPL(C)L states in reference iv) that it is committed to providing the necessary information exchange (via notification / engagement or consultation) throughout the life of the Project and that engagement will be undertaken in the event of a significant change to the Project or to the Project schedule. MIPL(C)L confirmed it will continue to provide information and will continue its engagement throughout the application process and on through the construction and operations phases as needs arise.

Request:

Provide: a) an itemized table providing an update on the consultation activities since the Application filing with all potentially affected stakeholders including but, not limited to, landowners, lessees, nearby residents, local governments, emergency services, first responders, trappers, hunters, guide outfitters and interest groups. This updated consultation log is to include, but not be limited to:

a.1) descriptions of the activities, the dates of the activities, and the methods of contact (e.g. telephone call, email, or in-person meetings);

a.2) a description of any new issues or concerns raised by stakeholders; and

a.3) a description of how MIPL(C)L has addressed or will address any concerns raised by stakeholders to the extent possible, or an explanation as to why no further action is required to address the concerns. b) for any new stakeholders identified since the Application filing, an explanation as to how they were identified, and any changes made to the stakeholder identification process; and c) a summary table of all unresolved issues or concerns raised by stakeholders, including a description of how MIPL(C)L will address these unresolved concerns, or an explanation as to why no further action is required to address the concerns.

Response 1.2

a) Refer to the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet (Attachment 4) for details. The “Updated Since June 2019 NEB Filing” column identifies engagement activities undertaken post-filing.

b) Since the Application was filed (June 2019), several new stakeholders have been identified via a variety of means. These include the following:

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020

Aboriginal Consultation Office (ACO) Identified New Indigenous Groups

The Government of Alberta Aboriginal Consultation Office was contacted by MIPL(C)L for a Pre- consultation Assessment to support the acquisition of Alberta Crown land interests required for the Project. The ACO recommended the Project follow a Level 1: Streamlined Consultation protocol. A total of ten (10) groups were identified by the ACO, some of which MIPL(C)L had already engaged with. The following new Project stakeholders have been identified by the ACO:

a. Buffalo Lake Metis Settlement

b. Kikino Metis Settlement

CER Identified Indigenous Groups

CER consulted with these groups as part of their July 18, 2019 letters to Indigenous people. These groups were identified by the CER, after the initial Territorial Analysis:

a. Buffalo Lake Metis Settlement (*also identified by the ACO)

b. East Prairie Metis Settlement

c. Gift Lake Metis Settlement

d. Kikino Metis Settlement (*also identified by the ACO)

e. Paddle Prairie Metis Settlement

f. Peavine Metis Settlement

g. Sikip Sakahikan (Waterhen Lake) First Nation

First Responders

Additional first responders were identified (in addition to the two (2) groups identified prior to filing the Application). MIPL(C)L engages nearby emergency services and regional municipalities as part of annual updates to the pipeline emergency response manual. In addition, MIPL(C)L offers safety training exercises periodically and several new stakeholders were identified during the process of identification of potential invitees to the safety training exercises in the area.

The annual updates were provided to:

a. RCMP – Cold Lake

b. RCMP – Loon Lake

c. RCMP – Pierceland

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020

d. Loon Lake Fire Dept

e. Alberta Health Services – Z5 North Zone

f. RM of Look Lake No. 581

g. Saskatchewan Ministry of Health – Health Management Unit

The safety training invitations were provided to:

h. Aquadeo Fire Dept

i. Britannia Fire Dept

j. Chitek Lake Fire Dept

k. Edam Fire Dept

l. Glaslyn Fire Dept

m. Kivimaa Moonlight Bay Fire Dept

n. Legacy Fire Dept

o. Leoville Fire Dept

p. Little Pine First Nation Fire Dept

q. Lloyd Rescue Squad

r. Lloydminster Fire Dept

s. Loon Lake Fire Dept

t. Medstead Fire Dept

u. Neilburg Fire Dept

v. Onion Lake Cree Nation Fire Dept

w. Poundmaker Cree Nation Fire Dept

x. Spiritwood Fire Dept

y. St. Walburg Fire Dept

z. Sweetgass First Nation Fire Dept

aa. Turtleford Fire Dept

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020

bb. Vermilion Fire Dept

Other

Husky Energy was identified by Project personnel working in the Project area and noticing recent land clearing activity on Crown land near the proposed compressor station site. Communication with the lessee confirmed potential well drilling activities.

Stakeholder Identification Process

The stakeholder identification process within the company Engagement Process will be updated to include contacting the Aboriginal Consultation Office for any projects that require land acquisition in Alberta (or have a portion in the Province of Alberta).

The process will also be updated to include cross-referencing the list of stakeholders with any stakeholders that have been contacted by the CER (within the project file on the CER website). Reference will be made more frequently to the CER website.

MIPL(C)L will contact the Saskatchewan Provincial Crown with respect to better identifying other land users, where nothing is registered on title (Husky Energy).

All Stakeholders and Indigenous Communities will be sent a Notice of Supplemental Filing/Project Update Letter advising of the recent filings with the CER and methods to locate future updates on the MIPL(C)L website. This will also provide links to filings to date on the CER website, including the Application, the Information Request Reply, and the Supplemental Filing (C04510). A form of notification letter is enclosed at Attachment 7. .

c) Refer to the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet for a list of queries and issues raised by the existing and new stakeholders. Below is a summary of concerns and their status updates since the application was filed:

a. Tree Salvaging on Crown lands - Status: Land agent working with Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment to support this activity.

b. Compressor and Pipeline Location - Status: Pipeline route updated to remove extra highway crossings, to parallel existing ROW, to mitigate proximities to residences or to remove from landowner land altogether. MIPL(C)L is currently negotiating acceptance of re-routed right-of-way with landowners.

c. Past Damages - Status: Discussions with landowners impacted by existing infrastructure and past projects. Mutual agreements reached between landowners and MIPL(C)L on these historical issues. Future land acquisition negotiations ongoing.

d. Future Land Planning - Status: Landowners concerned with impact the pipeline will have with future land subdividing opportunities. Negotiations ongoing.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Consultation Matters February 3, 2020

For any unresolved issues, MIPL(C)L will continue negotiations with property owners / occupants to try to resolve any issues in order to secure land rights. As applicable, post order MIPL(C)L may apply for right-of-entry while communications continue to take place with property owners. If a mutual agreement can be reached, then land rights would be secured via easement and not right- of-entry. MIPL(C)L anticipates that right of entry applications will be limited, possibly one or two landowners, if any.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environmental and Socio-economic Matters February 3, 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC MATTERS

Question 1.3: Environmental Protection Plan

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Appendix D – D.1 – Interactions Table, Pages 1 to 54 (PDF Pages 1 to 54 of 54) A99944-8 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Application Part 1 General, Page 28 (PDF Page 28 of 31), A99944-24 iii) NEB Filing Manual, Guide A.2.6.2 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Mitigation Measures, page 4A-33, PDF page 91 to 93 of 285

Preamble:

Reference i) identifies several potential Project interactions and indicates MIPL(C)L proposes mitigation to prevent or minimize residual effects from the Project. Some of the mitigation measures are references to various contingency and management plans within the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).

Reference ii) indicates that MIPL(C) L has developed an EPP for the Project and commits to having an EPP on-site.

Reference iii) states that the NEB may request the EPP to be filed during the examination of an application or as a condition of approval to be complied with before construction. This EPP must include a description of any plans or programs that may be used to mitigate potential effects (e.g. waste management plans, invasive species plans, horizontal directional drill contingency plans, heritage resource discovery contingency plans, etc.).

As per reference iii), the Commission requires further details about the management and contingency plans proposed in MIPL(C)L ’s Project EPP, and reflected in the environmental alignment sheets.

Request:

Provide the EPP, with environmental alignment sheets, that has been developed for the Project.

Response 1.3

The Project-specific Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) is provided in Appendix A of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) (Attachment 1).

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environmental and Socio-economic Matters February 3, 2020

Environmental Alignment Sheets will be produced following completion of detailed land survey of the pipeline route. Route Alignment is shown in Figure 1-1 of the ESA, provided in Attachment 1. Environmental Alignment Sheets will be provided to the CER no later than 30 days prior to construction.

Question 1.4: Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment

Reference: i) MIP(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project OAS Application, Page 9 of 10 (PDF Pages 9 of 10) A2V2E2 ii) MIP(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Application Part 4 ESA Rev 1, Page 1 (PDF Page 4 of 5) A99944-7 iii) MIP(C)L, Appendix D – D.1 – Interactions Table, Pages 1 to 54 (PDF Pages 1 to 54 of 54) A99944-8 iv) Filing Manual, Guide A.2 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, page 4A-18, (beginning PDF page 74 of 285)

Preamble:

In reference i), MIP(C)L states that an Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) has been conducted to identify and document potential environment and socio-economic effects.

In reference ii), MIP(C)L states that implementation of the mitigation measures presented in the Interactions Table (reference iii)), and within the ESA and the EPP, involvement in the design and planning of the Project by environmental specialists, and periodic inspection of the Project will help to maintain compliance with MIPL(C)L’s environmental commitments and EPP, and reduce the potential for adverse effects.

Reference iv) states that while a proponent’s full ESA is not required to be filed for applications using the Online Application System, it must still be prepared and may be requested at any time. The guidance notes that it may be helpful to include the ESA in applications where there are multiple or complex issues, or to provide clarity and efficiency in the review of an application.

Reference iv) also provides details about what must be included in an ESA, and specifies that the application must include a Cumulative Effects Assessment that contains information about the interactions between predicted residual environmental and socio-economic effects of the project and effects from other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out. The guidance further notes that, where there is applicable local and traditional knowledge, it must be included in the ESA.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environmental and Socio-economic Matters February 3, 2020

Request:

Provide a copy of the full ESA for the Project which must include, but is not limited to, a description of the mitigation measures for all potential impacts to all identified valued components (VC) (e.g. traditional land, water and resource use). The description for each VC should include a summary of consultations with potentially affected Indigenous peoples along with a description for how MIP(C)L has incorporated the results of its consultation, including any recommendations from those consulted, into the assessment.

Response 1.4

The Project’s ESA is provided in Attachment 1.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Land Matters February 3, 2020 LAND MATTERS

Question 1.5: Project Route Selection Process

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 6 Lands Rev 1, Section 7.2.3, Page 1 (PDF page 4 of 8), A99944-13 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 3 Economics Rev 1, Section 4.3.1, Page 1 (PDF Page 4 of 8), A99944-34 iii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 5 Engagement Rev 1, Page (PDF Page 9 of 15), A99944-20 iv) (MIPL(C)L ), Pierceland Supply Project, Appendix E E.1 Engagement Tracking Redacted, Pages 1 to 67 (PDF Pages 1-67 of 67), A99944-16 v) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 3 Economics Rev 1, Section 4.3.2, Page 2 (PDF Page 5 of 8), A99944-34 vi) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, OAS Application, Page 1 (PDF Page 1 of 10), A99944-1

Preamble:

In reference i), MIPL(C)L describes its proposed route for the Project.

In reference ii), MIPL(C)L states that of the three (3) project alternatives considered to meet the need to provide additional natural gas supply from Alberta supply transport into Saskatchewan, the primary driver behind the recommendation for the final proposed Pierceland Supply Project, is cost and rate impact.

Reference iii) states that initial planning for the Project included the consideration of multiple locations for the compressor station and variations of the pipeline route. Reference iii) also states that engagement activities including the open house and engagement with area landowners aided in the evaluation of the locations and routes considered and in the selection of the final site and route.

In reference iv), MIPL(C)L provides a log of engagement and consultation activities it undertook to examine both the preliminary route and the final route.

MIP(C)L states in reference v) that several alternative locations were investigated for siting of the compressor station and that each site identified was evaluated against Project criteria including site access, terrain including quantity of earthwork required in site preparation, aesthetic impact,

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Land Matters February 3, 2020 impact to nearby residences (including traffic impacts and noise), location of buried utilities, environmental factors, etc.).

Reference iv) indicates that refinements were made to the proposed route following consultation with potentially impacted parties, and how input was considered.

Reference vi) is MIPL(C)L’s request for exemption from the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of the NEB Act in respect of the Project.

Request:

Provide the following: a) a detailed description of MIPL(C)L’s route selection methodology, including, but not limited to:

a.1) a detailed description of how route selection criteria were determined, used and applied;

a.2) a description of any information provided or concerns raised about the route selection and process obtained by MIPL(C)L through consultation activities on its selection criteria;

a.3) how the information on route selection, obtained through consultations, was incorporated into the determination of routing options and the final route selection (including siting of above ground facilities), and, as applicable, an explanation as to why any information and/or concerns raised were not considered and incorporated into the final route selection; and

a.4) a detailed explanation as to how MIPL(C)L has balanced the selection criteria and factors to determine the proposed route to be the best option. b) a detailed description of any alternative routes considered or being considered by MIP(C)L, why these route alternatives are not MIP(C)L’s preferred route, and why MIP(C)L is of the view that the preferred route is the best option for the Project.

Response 1.5

a) A description of MIPL(C)L’s route selection methodology is included below:

a.1) MIPL(C)L has a standard set of criteria to aid in the selection of all pipeline routes and facilities in their pipeline system. The criteria is based on past experience and industry best practices. Criteria for route selection includes consideration of the following factors:

 Environmental factors – includes potential interactions between the Project activities and the components of the biophysical and socio-economic environment. This will include items such as length, presence and location of waterbodies, geotechnical hazards,

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Land Matters February 3, 2020

existing disturbances, heritage resources and presence of flora and fauna (including species at risk).

 Existing linear infrastructure – taking existing infrastructure into account, existing infrastructure may have an impact on the environmental footprint of a project and may also impact the economic consideration of the project alternatives.

 Land matters and land acquisition – includes input of potentially affected individuals and groups, such as relationship of the company with landowners in the area, perspective of landowners in the area, and consideration of landowner input.

 Economics – including cost, and rate impact to MIPL(C)L’s customers. It is in a company’s interest to keep capital expenditure as low as possible while maintaining the service that they provide.

All of the factors identified above were used by MIPL(C)L in the selection of the proposed route for the Pierceland Supply Project.

MIPL(C)L initially performed a desktop study to determine a preliminary route represented by the shortest distance between the point of supply and the delivery point, paralleling their existing pipeline infrastructure and Highway 55 where it made sense to do so. Refer Engagement Tracking Sheet (Attachment 4) where the preliminary pipeline route and compressor station location are identified by a combination of the rows shaded in yellow and the rows not shaded in yellow.

As the project progressed, MIPL(C)L performed some geotechnical investigations, a heritage resource review, and plant and wildlife surveys in order to refine the proposed route. MIPL(C)L also began their engagement process, identifying and engaging with (by the means identified in the application) potentially affected individuals and groups. This process included engagement with the landowners along the proposed route and the proposed site for the compressor station, and Indigenous groups in the area, in addition to others.

a.2) To aid in the route selection process, MIPL(C)L provided attendees at the Open House event an evaluation form, which allowed anyone who attended the Open House an opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns about the route selection process or compressor station siting process.

To date, there have been no queries into the route selection process or criteria used to determine the pipeline route or site the compressor station.

a.3) During the Open House and engagement with the landowners affected by the Project, concerns were raised with respect to the preliminary pipeline route and compressor station location. These concerns have been documented in the “Issues or concerns raised and/or discussed (include as much detail as possible)” column of the Engagement Tracking Sheet and

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Land Matters February 3, 2020

as previously summarized in the Part 5 Engagement Rev 1, Page (PDF Page 9 of 15), A99944- 20.

Pipeline Route Adjustment #1

MIPL(C)L altered the route in SE-11-62-27-W3M, SW-12-62-27-W3M and NE-01-62-27-(refer to Attachment F.1 – Updated Overview Map, Attachment F.2 – Right of Way Re-route of the Supplemental Filing (C04510)). The re-route allows for removal of two HDDs under Highway 55 and more practicable construction practices as the sharp turns in the pipeline construction are eliminated. This re-route impacts project economics and moves the pipeline further away from landowner residences.

Pipeline Route Adjustment #2

In the initial route selection, MIPL(C)L deviated the route from existing pipeline located in SW,SE- 03-62-26-W3M and SE-02-62-26-W3M (refer to Attachment F.1 – Updated Overview Map and Attachment F.2 – Right of Way Re-route to the Supplemental Filing (C04510)). This was due to initial consultation with the landowner and a request to avoid installing another pipeline on their land. The pipeline route was routed around the landowner’s land to NW, NE-03-62-26-W3M and NW-02-62-26-W3M. The landowner in NW-02-62-26-W3M was consulted and they also wanted to avoid installation of any pipeline on their land. MIPL(C)L has moved the route back to SW,SE- 03-62-26-W3M and SE-02-62-26-W3M. The pipeline route is shifted to the north side of the existing pipeline to stay as far as possible from the existing landowner residences. Also, paralleling the existing ROW lowers the environmental impact as the pipeline is installed next to existing infrastructure. Keeping the proposed ROW next to the existing MIPL(C)L pipeline ROW also reduces project economic impact as the length of the pipeline is reduced.

Pipeline Route Adjustment #3

The pipeline ROW was moved adjacent to the existing MIPL(C)L ROW in NW,NE-12-62-25-W3M (refer to Attachment F.1 – Updated Overview Map, Attachment F.2 – Right of Way Re-route of the Supplemental Filing (C04510)). In the initial route selection, the proposed pipeline ROW and the existing ROW had a gap between them. This was due to incorrect mapping information that showed Bow River Energy Ltd pipeline next to MIPL(C)L’s existing pipeline ROW. It was confirmed with Bow River Energy Ltd that they do not own and operate a pipeline in this location. This re-route allows MIPL(C)L to construct the new pipeline closer to the existing ROW hence reducing the environmental impact.

Pipeline Route Adjustment #4

The route was adjusted in NW-07-62-24-W3M on landowner’s request (refer to Attachment F.1 – Updated Overview Map, Attachment F.2 – Right of Way Re-route Supplemental Filing (C04510)). MIPL(C)L consulted with the landowner and the landowner suggested to stay away from

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Land Matters February 3, 2020

constructing the pipeline on the northern section of his land. The pipeline route was adjusted according to landowner’s request.

As can be seen from the Engagement Tracking Sheet and examples provided above, in some cases, the route was modified as a direct result of landowner concerns.

MIPL(C)L’s engagement process acknowledges that “the earlier engagement is initiated in the project phase, the easier any concerns or issues raised will be to address. As the design progresses, mitigation measures become costlier to implement and in some cases, the number of options available become limited.”

As can be seen in the Supplemental Filing (C04510) (Attachment F.1 thereto – Updated Overview Map, Attachment F.2 – Right of Way Re-route) filed February 3, 2020 and the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet (Attachment 4), the pipeline route has undergone minor changes due to the continued land negotiation process.

a.4) MIPL(C)L feels they have been able to balance the selection criteria and factors to determine the proposed route to be the best option through allowing for flexibility in the design and beginning the engagement process early enough in the design phase so that minor re-routes can be accommodated without an excessive cost / project impact.

b) As discussed in item “a” above, the original (preliminary) route has evolved with time and as the project has progressed through the design phase. At this time, MIPL(C)L is not considering any alternate routes.

The route as presented in the Supplemental Filing (C04510) (Attachment F.1 thereto – Updated Overview Map and Attachment F.2 – Right of Way Re-route), is the preferred route.

Question 1.6: Land Acquisition and Routing Update

Reference: i) MIP(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 6 Lands Rev1, Page 1 (PDF Page 4 of 8), A99944-13 ii) MIP(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 6 Lands Rev1, Page 3 (PDF Page 6 of 8), A99944-13 iii) MIP(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Part 5 Engagement Rev 1, Page 6 and 10 (PDF Pages 9 of 15) A99944-20 iv) MIP(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project, Appendix E E.1 Engagement Tracking Redacte, Pages 1 to 67 (PDF Pages 1-67 of 67) A99944-16

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Land Matters February 3, 2020

Preamble:

In Reference i), MIP(C)L provides details regarding its planned land acquisition process, schedule and some consultation considerations.

Reference ii) includes an update on the status of land acquisition for the Project.

MIP(C)L states in reference iii) that initial planning for the Project included the consideration of multiple locations for the compressor station and variations of the pipeline route. MIP(C)L also states that engagement activities with area landowners aided in the evaluation of the locations and routes considered and in the selection of the final site and route. Finally in reference iii) MIP(C)L provides a general list of concerns raised by landowners, lessees and occupants that included various routing issues.

In reference iv), MIP(C)L provides a log of engagement and consultation activities it undertook to examine both the preliminary route and the final route.

Request: a) Provide an update on the status of land acquisition activities and landowner consultations to obtain the necessary land rights for the Project, including but not limited to:

a.1) permanent rights-of-way;

a.2) temporary workspace/construction rights-of-way;

a.3) any third party crossings for this Project; and

a.4) an itemized table outlining MIPCL’s consultation activities undertaken with landowners, noting those landowners who have expressed route concerns with regard to the proposed pipeline corridor. b) This update must include, but not be limited to:

b.1) a summary indicating the total number of easement agreements, section 87(1) notices, temporary workspace agreements required, executed, and outstanding;

b.2) MIP(C)L’s next steps in terms of landowner consultation for these outstanding tracts around land acquisition;

b.3) the approximate date MIP(C)L anticipates acquiring all land rights required for the Project, including:

i) a summary of any unresolved issues and concerns related to acquiring the necessary land rights;

ii) the steps MIP(C)L has taken or will take to address these issues and concerns;

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Land Matters February 3, 2020

iii) a property sketch for each landowner that requested a routing accommodation illustrating detail of the original planned route, and the deviation made to accommodate the request, or an explanation of why the accommodation could not be made and how MIP(C)L will work with the landowner to address any outstanding concern; and

b.4) the steps MIP(C)L will take in the event it is unable to acquire the necessary land rights for the Project.

Response 1.6

a) Refer to the Land Acquisition and Routing Update Line List (Attachment 5) for details on the acquisition of a.1) permanent rights-of-way, a.2) temporary workspace / construction rights-of- way, a.3) third party crossings.

Refer to the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet (Attachment 4) for details of a.4) consultation activities undertaken with landowners. The “Updated Since June 2019 NEB Filing” column identifies engagement activities undertaken post-filing.

b) Refer to the Land Acquisition and Routing Update Line List for details of b.1) a status summary of easement agreements, section 87(1) and section 322(1) notices, b.2) next steps to obtain outstanding agreements and serving of section 322(1) notices.

b.3) i) Refer the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet (Attachment 4) for details on outstanding concerns related to acquiring land rights.

ii) Refer the updated Engagement Tracking Sheet (Attachment 4), and Land Acquisition and Routing Update Line List (Attachment 5) for details of steps MIPL(C)L has taken or will take to address concerns.

iii) Refer to Table 6-1 below for re-route details. Individual Ownership Plans (IOPs) referenced in Table 6-1 are included in Attachment 3.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Land Matters February 3, 2020

Table 6-1 Explanation of Sketches Illustrating Points of Route Revision

Pipeline IOP No. Accommodation / Deviation Outstanding Route Concern? Adjustment #* 1 120 - 123 Pipeline was re-routed due to practical reasons, not No landowner concerns (i.e., two highway crossings and sharp turns on the pipeline route are avoided). 2 112 - 116 Pipeline was re-routed due to landowner concerns / No issues 3 46.1 - 46.3 The route was adjusted from the north side to the No south side of the existing line – adjacent to the existing ROW. Re-route was not due to landowner concerns. 4 82 - 85 The route was adjusted at landowner request. The No IOPs reflect the change to the south side of the existing line.

*as identified in response 1.5

b.4) In the case that MIPL(C)L is unable to acquire the necessary land rights for the Project, MIPL(C)L will continue negotiations with the property owners / occupants to try to resolve any issues in order to secure the land rights. MIPL(C)L may apply for right-of-entry while the communications / negotiations continue. If a mutual agreement can be reached, then land rights would be secured via easement.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020 ENVIRONMENT MATTERS

Question 1.7: Vegetation

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Appendix D – D.1 – Interactions Table, Vegetation, Pages 10 to 12 (PDF Pages 10 to 12 of 54), A6V2E3 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project OAS Application, Page 8 (PDF page 8 of 10), A6V2E2

Preamble:

Reference i) states that rare plant surveys, wetland surveys and weed surveys will be completed in summer/fall 2019 prior to construction.

Reference i) also states that up to 36.7 ha of native upland vegetation will be cleared during construction. Following construction, native upland vegetation will be allowed to re-establish in the ROW and TWS.

In Reference i) MIPL(C)L describes potential effects of the Project to vegetation and the mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the identified effects.

Reference ii) indicates that MIPL(C)L conducted an ESA to identify and document potential environment and socio-economic effects.

Request:

a.1) the conservations status of any rare plant identified in a) that may be potentially affected by the Project;

a.2) a map showing the location of rare plant(s) and related rare plant populations in relation to the Project;

a.3) a discussion of any additional mitigation results that will be implemented as a result of the surveys. b) a description of the native upland species that will be cleared during construction; and

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020 c) a discussion on how MIPL(C)L will measure and monitor the success of allowing the native upland vegetation to re-stablish and, where issues are identified, how adaptive management will be employed to address them.

Response 1.7 a) The results of vegetation field surveys completed in 2019 for the Project are detailed in the Supplemental Field Summary Report, which is provided in Attachment 2 of this response. a.1) The conservation status of rare plants identified during field surveys is provided in Table 3-1 of the Supplemental Field Summary Report (Attachment 2 to this response). None of the identified species is listed federally on the Species at Risk Act or by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). a.2) Figure 3-1 in the Supplemental Field Summary Report shows the locations of rare plants identified during field surveys, in relation to the Project. a.3) No plant species of management concern were identified on the ROW. The locations of plant Species of Management Concern within 30 m of the ROW will be marked and will remain undisturbed during construction. b) A description of the native upland communities that will be cleared during construction can be found in Table 3-2 of the Supplemental Field Summary Report, provided in Attachment 2. c) As outlined in the EPP (Appendix A of Attachment 1) and in Table 6-7 of the ESA (Attachment 1), on non-cultivated lands, post-construction vegetation growth will be inspected regularly by MIPL(C)L to confirm a self-sustaining vegetation cover is established and maintained. Any sites with sparse growth will be re-seeded, including implementation of any other remedial measures to enhance plant establishment.

MIPL(C)L will refer to the 2010 Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities for Forested Land (Updated July 2013) for reclamation criteria and adaptive management strategies that will aid in the re-establishment of native upland vegetation (ERSD 2013).

Question 1.8: Fish and Fish Habitat

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Appendix D – D.1 – Interactions Table, Fish and Fish Habitat, Pages 16 to 19 (PDF Pages 16 to 19 of 54), A6V2E3 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project OAS Application, Page 8 (PDF page 8 of 10), A6V2E2

Preamble:

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020

Reference i), indicates that the Cold Lake portion of the Project crosses three unnamed tributaries to the Beaver River and one drainage. Two unnamed tributaries to the Beaver River will be crossed using a trenchless crossing method (HDD). If dry, an unnamed tributary to the Beaver River, and a drainage will be crossed using a trenched crossing method which involves disturbance to bed and banks and in-stream works.

Reference i) states that fish and fish habitat field surveys will be completed in spring/summer 2019.

In reference i), MIPL(C)L describes potential effects of the Project to fish and fish habitat at watercourse crossings intersected by the Project and the mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the identified effects.

Reference ii) indicates that MIPL(C)L conducted an ESA to identify and document potential environment and socio-economic effects.

Request:

Provide references to where the following information can be found in the ESA and EPP documents for the Project: a) a summary of the results of the surveys scheduled for 2019, if available; b) the ecological settings for the watercourses crossed by the Project, including but not limited to:

b.1) number of crossing location, name, provincial classification;

b.2) fish species supported, habitat type, restricted activity period or window of least concern; and

b.3) pipeline crossing methods and proposed construction date. c) based on the information filed in response to a), confirmation that MIPL(C)L and its contractors are able to follow all applicable DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat during watercourse crossing construction; and d) for those watercourses where confirmation cannot be provided as required in b), provide MIPL(C)L ’s self-assessment of serious harm for the watercourse crossing, including an indication of whether an Authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act is required.

Response 1.8 a) The results of fish and fish habitat field surveys completed in 2019 for the Project are detailed in the Supplemental Field Summary Report, which is provided in Attachment 2 of this response.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020 b.1), b.2) Watercourse crossing locations, names and the Restricted Activity Timing Window (RATW) are described in Table 8-5 of the ESA (Attachment 1). Fish species and habitat type, as noted during 2019 surveys are described in Section 5.2 of the Supplemental Field Summary Report (Attachment 2) There is no provincial classification system in Saskatchewan for watercourses b.3) Table 2-2 of the ESA (Attachment 1) provides watercourse crossing locations and methods. All crossings will be constructed between September and November 2020. c), d) All watercourse crossings will be constructed outside the RATW. MIPL(C)L confirms that applicable DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat will be followed during watercourse crossing construction at all watercourse crossings. Authorization under the Fisheries Act is not required for the construction of the Project.

Question 1.9: Wetlands

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Appendix D – D.1 – Interactions Table, Wetlands, Page 20 (PDF Page 20 of 54), A6V2E3 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project OAS Application, Page 8 (PDF page 8 of 10), A6V2E2

Preamble:

Reference i) states that the Cold Lake portion of the Project crosses wetlands, including fens, marshes, swamps and shallow open water. Construction will result in the temporary alteration of up to 7.1 ha of wetlands within the Project development Area (PDA).

Reference i) states that wetland surveys will be completed in spring/summer 2019.

In reference i) MIPL(C)L describes potential effects of the Project to wetlands in the PDA and the mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the identified effects.

Reference ii) indicates that MIPL(C)L conducted an ESA to identify and document potential environment and socio-economic effects.

Request:

Provide references to where the following information can be found in the ESA and EPP documents for the Project: a) a summary of the results of the surveys scheduled for 2019, if available; b) additional quantification, delineation and description of wetlands in the study area in the context of, but not necessarily limited to:

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020

b.1) wetland class, ecological community type and conservation status;

b.2) abundance at local, regional and provincial scales;

b.3) distribution;

b.4) current level of disturbance. c) a description of the efforts to be taken to avoid impacting wetlands and the mitigation, monitoring and any applicable compensation measures, for potentially affected wetlands; and d) where residual effects have been predicted, identification of whether those residual effects would be likely to act in combination with the effects of other physical facilities or activities that have been or will be carried out.

Response 1.9 a), b) The results of vegetation and wetland field surveys completed in 2019 for the Project are detailed in the Supplemental Field Summary Report, which is provided in Attachment 2 of this response. b.1) Information about wetland class and cover within the project development area (PDA) and local assessment area (LAA; 100 m buffer on the PDA) is provided in Table 3-2 of the Supplemental Field Summary Report (Attachment 2). Further description of the wetland types found in the PDA and LAA are provided in Appendix D of the ESA (Attachment 1). There are no wetlands with a conservation status (i.e., Ramsar) that will be affected by the Project. b.2) Wetland abundance in the PDA and LAA is provided in Table 3-2 of the of the Supplemental Field Summary Report (Attachment 2). Wetland abundance in the regional assessment area (RAA; 15 km buffer on the PDA) is provided in Table 6-13 of the ESA (Attachment 1). b.3) The distribution of wetlands in the LAA is shown in Figure 6-1 of the ESA (Attachment 1). b.4) The current level of disturbance for each wetland is provided in Table 1.9-1.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020

Table 1.9-1Class, Location and Disturbance for Wetlands in the PDA

Wetland ID Wetland Class Quarter Section Existing Wetland Disturbance 32 Graminoid Marsh, Semi-permanent SW-10-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing 534 Shrubby Swamp SE-10-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing 548 Shrubby Fen SW-11-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing 552 Graminoid Marsh, Temporary SE-11-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing 553 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal NE-02-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 554 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal NE-02-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 555 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal NE-02-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 558 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal NE-02-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting NW-01-62-27-W3 566 Graminoid Marsh, Semi-permanent /NE-02-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 593 Graminoid Marsh, Semi-permanent NE-01-62-27-W3 cattle pugging and grazing 595 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal NW-06-62-26-W3 cattle pugging and grazing 599 Graminoid Marsh, Semi-permanent NW-06-62-26-W3 cattle pugging and grazing 603 Graminoid Marsh, Ephemeral NE-06-62-26-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 604 Graminoid Marsh, Ephemeral NE-06-62-26-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 605 Graminoid Marsh, Ephemeral NE-06-62-26-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 607 Graminoid Marsh, Ephemeral NE-06-62-26-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 608 Graminoid Marsh, Ephemeral NE-06-62-26-W3 cattle pugging and grazing; hay cutting 634 Graminoid Marsh, Temporary SW-04-62-26-W3 row-crop cultivation 644 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal SE-04-62-26-W3 hay cutting 723 Mixedwood Swamp SE-02-62-26-W3 no evident disturbance 736 Graminoid Marsh, Temporary SW-01-62-26-W3 hay cutting 743 Graminoid Marsh, Semi-permanent SW-01-62-26-W3 no evident disturbance 748 Mixedwood Swamp SE-01-62-26-W3 no evident disturbance 753 Shrubby Fen SE-01-62-26-W3 no evident disturbance 754 Shallow Open Water SE-01-62-26-W3 no evident disturbance 755 Shrubby Fen SE-01-62-26-W3 no evident disturbance 756 Conifer Swamp NW-06-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 762 Treed Fen NE-06-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 764 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal NW-06-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 777 Graminoid Marsh, Semi-permanent SW-08-62-25-W3 hay cutting 778 Shrubby Swamp NW-09-62-25-W3 cattle pugging and grazing 785 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal NE-09-62-25-W3 hay cutting 788 Mixedwood Swamp NE-09-62-25-W3 hay cutting 794 Graminoid Marsh, Seasonal NW-10-62-25-W3 hay cutting

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020

Table 1.9-1Class, Location and Disturbance for Wetlands in the PDA

Wetland ID Wetland Class Quarter Section Existing Wetland Disturbance 814 Shrubby Swamp NW-11-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 816 Deciduous Swamp NW-11-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 818 Deciduous Swamp NW-11-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance NW-11-62-25-W3 / 820 Deciduous Swamp NE-11-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 823 Deciduous Swamp NE-11-62-25-W3 row-crop cultivation 849 Treed Fen NE-12-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 856 Graminoid Fen NE-12-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 859 Treed Fen NE-12-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance 871 Conifer Swamp NE-12-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance NE-01-62-26-W3/ 888 Conifer Swamp SE-01-62-26-W3 no evident disturbance 892 Conifer Swamp SE-01-62-26-W3 no evident disturbance 907 Deciduous Swamp NW-06-62-25-W3 no evident disturbance c) MIPL(C)L’s efforts to avoid impacting wetlands and the proposed mitigation, monitoring and any applicable compensation measures, for potentially affected wetlands are detailed in Table 6-7 of the ESA, (Attachment 1) and in the EPP (Appendix A of Attachment 1). d) An assessment of cumulative effects on vegetation and wetlands is detailed in section 6.6 of the ESA (Attachment 1).

Question 1.10: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Appendix D – D.1 – Interactions Table, Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, Page 23 (PDF Page 23 of 54), A6V2E3 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project OAS Application, Page 8 (PDF page 8 of 10), A6V2E2

Preamble:

Reference i) states that construction will result in temporary disturbance to and reduced habitat effectiveness of habitat for wildlife within and near this Project component footprint.

Reference i) states that wildlife surveys will be conducted in summer 2019.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020

In reference i), MIPL(C)L describes potential effects of the Project to wildlife and wildlife habitat in the PDA and the mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the identified effects.

Reference ii) indicates that MIPL(C)L conducted an ESA to identify and document potential environment and socio-economic effects.

Request:

Provide references to where the following information can be found in the ESA and EPP documents for the Project: a) a summary of the results of the surveys scheduled for 2019, if available; b) describe whether the species listed in a), could be affected by the Project; and c) any additional mitigation to reduce Project impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat that may be required as a result of the surveys.

Response 1.10 a) The results of wildlife field surveys completed in 2019 for the Project are detailed in the Supplemental Field Summary Report, which is provided in Attachment 2 of this response. b), c) Project interactions with Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat can be found in Section 7.3 of the ESA (Attachment 1). An assessment of effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat can be found in Section 7.5 of the ESA (Attachment 1). With the implementation of the additional mitigation measures recommended following 2019 field surveys (see Table 6-1 of the Supplemental Field Summary Report), the nature of predicted residual effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat outlined in the ESA (see Section 7.5) are anticipated to remain unchanged.

Question 1.11: Species at Risk (SAR)

Reference: i) MIP(C)L, Appendix D – D.1 – Interactions Table, Vegetation, Pages 10 to 12 (PDF Pages 10 to 12 of 54 of 234), A6V2E3 ii) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project OAS Application, Page 8 (PDF page 8 of 10), A6V2E2

Preamble:

Reference i) states that the northeastern-most portion of the Regional Assessment Area overlaps the southern edge of the Saskatchewan boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020 range. The Local Assessment Area has the potential to provide habitat for several wildlife species of management concern (SOMC), including Species at Risk, such as little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), and northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens).

Reference i) also indicated there were observations of three SAR (western grebe, Canada warbler (Cardellina canadensis), and barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) and one species of concern (Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis) within the RAA.

Reference i) states that wildlife surveys will be conducted in summer 2019.

In reference i) MIPL(C)L describes potential effects of the Project to species at risk in the PDA and the mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the identified effects.

Reference ii) indicates that MIPL(C)L conducted an ESA to identify and document potential environment and socio-economic effects.

Request:

b.1) identify the applicable provincial or federal conservation status;

b.2) identify the potential habitat, including any critical habitat designated under the Species at Risk Act, that could be affected by the Project;

b.3) describe whether the species, its habitat, or the residence of those species could be affected by the Project. c) a detailed summary of how any Project effects on provincially listed species and species at risk would be avoided or mitigated during construction and operation of the Project.

Response 1.11 a) The results of wildlife field surveys completed in 2019 for the Project are detailed in the Supplemental Field Summary Report, which is provided in Attachment 2 of this response.

b.1), b.2) Table 1.11-1 identifies those species identified in the LAA during 2019 field surveys (as noted in Section 4.0 of the Supplemental Field Summary Report) that have a provincial or federal conservation status. The table also outlines general habitat associations of the identified species and estimated area of suitable habitat types in the PDA (based on Vegetation and Wetland Cover presented in Table 3-2 of the

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020

Supplemental Field Summary Report). No critical habitat designated under the Species at Risk Act will be affected by the Project. b.3), c) An assessment of effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, including species at risk and species of management concern, can be found in Section 7.5 of the ESA (Attachment 1). With the implementation of mitigation measures provided in Table 7-5 of the ESA (Attachment 1), the EPP (Appendix A of Attachment 1) and the additional mitigation measures recommended following 2019 field surveys (see Table 6-1 of the Supplemental Field Summary Report), the nature of predicted residual effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, including for species at risk and species of management concern, outlined in the ESA (see Section 7.5) are anticipated to remain unchanged.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Environment Matters February 3, 2020

Table 1.11-1 Conservation Status and General Habitat Association of Wildlife Species at Risk and Species of Management Concern Observed in the LAA during 2019 Surveys

Common Name Scientific Name SARA¹ COSEWIC2 SK TWA3 SKCDC4 AWA5 AEP rank6 General Habitat Types within the PDA7 HERPTILES Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Special Concern Special Concern — S3 Threatened At Risk Open water (e.g., ponds, watercourses) and marshes (breeding habitat) BIRDS Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Special Concern Special Concern — S5B, S5M — Sensitive Small, shallow, graminoid ponds and marshes American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus — — — S5B — Sensitive Graminoid marsh Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Special Concern Special Concern — S3B, S3M — Undetermined Graminoid marsh Sora Porzana carolina — — — S5B, 5M — Sensitive Seasonal or semi-permanent graminoid marsh or wet meadows Black tern Chlidonias niger — Not at Risk — S5B, S5M — Sensitive Shallow marshes, semi-permanent ponds Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus — — — S5B, S5M — Sensitive Open broadleaf and mixed forest Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas — — — S5B, S5M — Sensitive Graminoid marsh, shrubby and wooded swamp NOTES: 1 Species listed under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2019a) 2 Species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2019); 3 Wildlife species at risk in Saskatchewan listed under The Wildlife Act, 1998 (GOS 1998, 2019a) 4 Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre species lists (SKCDC 2018, 2019); designations are as follows: S = province-wide status 3 = vulnerable / rare to uncommon: at moderate risk of extinction or extirpation due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors 5 = secure / common: demonstrably secure under present conditions; widespread and abundant; low threat level B = for a migratory species, applies to the breeding population in the province M = for a migratory species, rank applies to the transient (migrant) population 5 Wildlife species at risk in Alberta listed under the Wildlife Act (GOA 1997) 6 Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing (AEP 2017) 7 Refer to Table 3-2 of the Supplemental Field Summary Report (Attachment 2) for further information about vegetation and wetland cover in the PDA.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Engineering Matters February 3, 2020

ENGINEERING MATTERS

Question 1.12: New Edition of CSA Z662

Reference: i) MIPL(C)L, Pierceland Supply Project Application, Part 2 Engineering, PDF page 18 of 26, A99944-29 ii) National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulations iii) Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662-19, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems iv) NEB Information Advisory – NEB IA 2019-002, 8 July 2019

Preamble:

In reference i), (MIPL(C)L) indicates that the Pierceland Supply Project (Project) will comply with CSA Standard Z662-15.

Reference ii) incorporates the CSA Standard Z662, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, as amended from time to time.

Reference iii) was issued 19 June 2019 and revokes CSA Z662-15.

Reference iv) indicates that MIPL(C)L is obligated to comply with the new requirements in Reference iii).

Request:

Provide the following: a) a concordance table advising whether MIPL(C)L will be filing updated information which complies with Z662-19 for:

a.1) each phase of the Project (from design to operation); and

a.2) each instance where the Application relies on CSA Z662. b) a schedule indicating when the updated information will be provided; and c) where MIPL(C)L will not be filing the specified information, provide a detailed explanation and request for exemption.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Engineering Matters February 3, 2020

Response 1.12

a) MIPL(C)L has undergone a gap analysis for this project with respect to CSA Z662-2019.

a.1) Table 12-1 below shows each phase of the Project (from design to operation), and reflects each instance where the application relies on CSA Z662 and indicates when updated information will be filed.

a.2) MIP(C)L in their Supplemental Filing (C04510)summarizes the major changes with respect to material and following the new CSA Z662-2019. Materials for the pipeline and compressor station have been updated based on the requirements of CSA Z662-2019. Refer to items 1.2.1 and 1.3 within the Supplemental Filing (C04510).

Refer also to Error! Reference source not found. (Attachment 6) for additional details on the g ap analysis completed that indicates where the Application relies on CSA Z662.

Table 12-1 Pierceland Supply Project – Concordance Table for Project Designed to CSA Z662-2015 and CSA Z662-2019

Phase Application Updated Information to be When Updated Info Provided to CER will be Provided to CER Design E1, EM1 Confirmation that the Provided – 3-Feb- project will comply with the 2020 most recent version of CSA Z662 was included in the Supplemental Filing (C04510), filed with the CER 3-Feb-2020. Construction E1, EM1 Confirmation that the Provided – 3-Feb- project will comply with the 2020 most recent version of CSA Z662 was included in the Supplemental Filing (C04510), filed with the CER 3-Feb-2020. Construction Refer to Supplemental Confirmation that the Provided – 3-Feb- Filing (C04510) – 1.2.2.4 project will comply with the 2020 Qualification of NDE most recent version of CSA Examiners Z662 was included in the Supplemental Filing (C04510), filed with the CER 3-Feb-2020. Operation E1, EM1 Confirmation that the Provided – 3-Feb- project will comply with the 2020 most recent version of CSA Z662 was included in the Supplemental Filing (C04510), filed with the CER 3-Feb-2020.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Engineering Matters February 3, 2020

b) Refer to Table 12-1 above for details. There is no additional information that will be provided to the CER based on MIPL(C)L’s gap analysis of the impact of the new edition of CSA Z662.

c) MIPL(C)L will not be requesting an exemption based on the CSA Z662-2019 requirement.

APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PIERCELAND SUPPLY PROJECT RESPONSE TO CER INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 1

Engineering Matters February 3, 2020

References: ESRD 2013. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) 2013. 2010 Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities for Forested Lands (Updated July 2013) Edmonton, Alberta. 81 pp.