Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc

Home , Estevan, Glen Ewen, White Bear 70

REPORT ON

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE ALIDA TO CROMER CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECT

Submitted to:

Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. 402 Kensington Avenue Estevan, Saskatchewan S4A 2K9

Attention: Ms. Femke Want

DISTRIBUTION:

25 Copies - National Energy Board, Calgary, Alberta 6 Copies - Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc., Calgary, Alberta 2 Copies - Golder Associates Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

December 2006 06-1361-319 December 2006 - i - 06-1361-319

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. is proposing to expand the capacity of its current Westspur transmission system through the construction of the Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion Project, referred to as the “Project”. The Project will consist of the construction of a 60 km long (with a 20 m wide Right-of-Way, a 168.3 mm (6 inch) outside diameter pipeline to transport natural gas liquids from Alida, Saskatchewan to Cromer, Manitoba (Figure 1). Once construction is complete, the existing, adjacent 324 mm (12 inch) outside diameter pipeline will be converted from its current natural gas liquids service to crude oil service. The terminals at Alida and Cromer will be upgraded to accommodate the new line, and additional pumps will be added at Alida.

Construction is proposed to begin in July 2007, once the necessary regulatory approvals have been received, and the Project is anticipated to be completed by September/October 2007.

The Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment follows the National Energy Board Filing Manual (2006) using Guide A – Facilities Applications (National Energy Board Act Section 52 and Section 58).

The Project will be constructed using best construction techniques and mitigations described in detail in the Environmental Protection Plan. Proposed soil salvage and replacement includes trench and spoil side stripping in agricultural areas, and trench line stripping in areas of extensive native vegetation.

The proposed alignment of the Project parallels an existing pipeline constructed in 1955. No long-term environmental effects were identified as a result this existing Right-of- Way.

Baseline environmental conditions in the Project area were described and Valued Ecosystem Components were identified using the concepts of sustainable development, the results of the consultation program, and a review of existing information for the following:

• Climate; • Air quality; • Acoustic environment; • Geology; • Groundwater; • Aquatics; • Soils;

Golder Associates

N:\ACTIVE\2006\1361\06-1361-319 ENBRIDGE ALIDA TO CROMER PIPELINE\REPORT\FINAL DRAFT\FINAL REPORT (DECEMBER 2006)\REPORT - DECEMBER 5, 2006\WESTSPUR ESA FINAL - DECEMBER 2006.DOC December 2006 - ii - 06-1361-319

• Vegetation; • Wildlife and wildlife habitat; • Wetlands; • Socio-economics; and, • Heritage resources.

Key baseline results include:

• the crossing of nine water courses and associated riparian vegetation communities, five of which are known to contain fish; • the crossing of approximately 2,100 m of designated wildlife lands containing native vegetation on both sides of the Saskatchewan/Manitoba border; and, • the crossing of the margins of 60 wetlands not crossed by the existing Right-of-Way.

Key mitigation measures for the Project include:

• following an existing Right-of-Way for the entire length; • implementation of best management practices including suspension of construction during wet conditions; • trench width only stripping through the designated wildlife lands; • salvage of the entire depth of topsoil; • revegetation using a native seed mix through areas of native vegetation; • extending road bores under adjacent permanent wetlands; and, • directional drill under the Pipestone Creek.

The ecological context of the residual effects of the Project were determined for each Valued Ecosystem Components considering direction, magnitude, spatial extent, duration, frequency, reversibility, probability of occurrence, and permanence. The ecological context of all residual effects was considered negligible or low. Long-term effects of the Project were judged to be not significant based on the minimal impacts observed of the existing Right-of-Way and the mitigation measures proposed.

Cumulative effects were also assessed, considering the combined effects of the Project with the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments in the region. The cumulative effects were considered to be of low importance and predicted to be not significant.

Environmental monitoring will be conducted during construction so that the mitigation measures proposed are implemented and/or so that appropriate modifications and decisions can be made in the field to respond to the conditions at the time of construction.

Golder Associates

Based on the findings presented in this Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, it is Golder Associates Ltd.'s opinion that the Project can be constructed in an environmentally responsible manner, with limited negative impacts to the current environmental and socio-economic conditions.

The residual effects identified in the impact assessment are considered to be typical for this type of project, and mitigation strategies proposed have been used successfully on similar projects throughout Canada. As such, Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. and Golder Associates Ltd. are confident that the predicted residual impacts (rated as negligible to low) reasonably represent the Project effects; the predicted residual impacts were judged to be not significant.

The cumulative effects assessment considered the predicted residual impacts, in conjunction with residual impacts from past, present and known, approved projects in the cumulative effects study area. Considering the low level of environmental and social effects identified, and the expectation that the majority of the cumulative effects would be apparent during the construction phase of the Project and reversible with proven mitigation, the cumulative effects are predicted to be not significant. Consistent with the concepts of sustainable development, the Project is not expected to limit the use of the area or the natural resources in the area, by future generations.

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE Executive Summary ...... i Table of Contents...... iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations...... xiv 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Proponent ...... 1-3 1.2 Contacts ...... 1-3 1.3 Regulatory Approvals and Authorizations ...... 1-4 1.4 Concordance Table ...... 1-6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 2-1 2.1 Purpose and Need of Project ...... 2-1 2.1.1 Pipeline Capacity Considerations and Alternatives to the Project...... 2-1 2.1.2 Pipeline Tolls ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Components ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Pipeline ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Booster and Valve Stations ...... 2-2 2.2.3 Pipeline Conversion...... 2-3 2.2.4 Temporary Facilities ...... 2-3 2.3 Route Selection ...... 2-3 2.4 Construction Techniques...... 2-6 2.4.1 Clearing ...... 2-6 2.4.2 Grading ...... 2-6 2.4.3 Trenching...... 2-7 2.4.4 Pipelaying ...... 2-7 2.4.5 Backfilling...... 2-7 2.4.6 Reclamation and Restoration ...... 2-7 2.5 Pipeline Integrity Validation and Testing ...... 2-8 2.6 Construction Schedule ...... 2-9 2.7 Waste Disposal...... 2-9 2.8 Emergency Response Plan ...... 2-9 2.9 Effects of the Environment on the Project ...... 2-10 2.10 Local Study Area ...... 2-11 2.10.1 Environmental Study Area ...... 2-11 2.10.2 Socio-economic and Consultation Study Area ...... 2-12 3.0 CONSULTATION...... 3-1 3.1 Regulatory and Government Consultation ...... 3-2 3.2 Aboriginal Issues and Consultation ...... 3-6 3.3 Existing Consultation Program ...... 3-6

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

4.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGIES ...... 4-1 4.1 Acoustic Environment Methods ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Baseline Data Collection Method...... 4-1 4.1.2 Instrumentation and Data Parameters...... 4-1 4.1.3 Noise Monitoring Location Selection ...... 4-2 4.2 Terrestrial Surveys ...... 4-5 4.2.1 Soil Survey...... 4-5 4.2.2 Vegetation Survey ...... 4-6 4.2.3 Listed Plant Species Survey Methodologies...... 4-6 4.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Survey...... 4-6 4.4 Aquatic Surveys...... 4-9 4.5 Heritage Surveys ...... 4-9 5.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ...... 5-1 5.1 Climate ...... 5-1 5.2 Air Quality ...... 5-2 5.3 Acoustic Environment...... 5-3 5.3.1 Site 1...... 5-4 5.3.2 Site 2...... 5-6 5.3.3 Site 3...... 5-7 5.3.4 Site 4...... 5-8 5.3.5 Source Measurements...... 5-9 5.3.6 Discussion and Summary ...... 5-11 5.4 Geology ...... 5-13 5.5 Groundwater...... 5-15 5.6 Aquatics...... 5-16 5.6.1 Habitat Assessment Results...... 5-19 5.7 Soils...... 5-26 5.7.1 Reclamation Suitability of Soils...... 5-28 5.7.2 Saline Soils ...... 5-29 5.7.3 Wind and Water Erosion Risk of Soil Series...... 5-30 5.7.4 Agricultural Capability ...... 5-31 5.8 Vegetation ...... 5-35 5.8.1 Vegetation Communities...... 5-35 5.8.2 Listed Plant Species ...... 5-38 5.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 5-39 5.9.1 Mammals ...... 5-41 5.9.2 Birds...... 5-42 5.9.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 5-45 5.9.4 Listed Wildlife Species...... 5-45

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

5.10 Wetlands...... 5-48 5.10.1 Ephemeral Wetlands ...... 5-49 5.10.2 Temporary Wetlands ...... 5-50 5.10.3 Seasonal Wetlands...... 5-50 5.10.4 Semi-permanent Wetlands ...... 5-51 5.10.5 Permanent Wetlands ...... 5-51 5.10.6 Artificial Wetlands ...... 5-51 6.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING...... 6-1 6.1 Project Description - Socio-economic Aspects...... 6-1 6.1.1 Capital Costs ...... 6-1 6.1.2 Labour Requirements ...... 6-1 6.1.3 Access to the Site ...... 6-1 6.1.4 Operations ...... 6-1 6.2 Existing Socio-economic Environment ...... 6-2 6.3 Archaeology and Heritage Resources...... 6-8 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 7-1 7.1 Air Quality ...... 7-1 7.2 Acoustic Environment...... 7-2 7.3 Wildlife Mitigation...... 7-2 7.4 Soil Salinity...... 7-2 7.5 Wet Conditions ...... 7-3 7.6 Wetland Mitigation ...... 7-4 7.7 Aquatic Habitat Mitigation...... 7-6 7.7.1 In-stream Work Windows...... 7-6 7.7.2 Pipeline Crossings of Watercourses...... 7-6 7.7.3 Temporary Equipment Crossings of Watercourses ...... 7-7 7.7.4 Hydrostatic Testing ...... 7-7 7.8 Native Vegetation ...... 7-8 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 8-1 8.1 Valued Environmental Component Selection ...... 8-1 8.1.1 Physical Environment ...... 8-2 8.1.2 Selection of Biological Environment Valued Environmental Components ...... 8-3 8.1.3 Selection of Human Environment Valued Environmental Components ...... 8-4 8.2 Determination of Residual Effects ...... 8-4 8.2.1 Magnitude Description ...... 8-6 8.2.2 Prediction Confidence...... 8-10 8.2.3 Significance Determination ...... 8-10

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

8.3 Significance Conclusion ...... 8-14 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 9-1 9.1 Air Quality ...... 9-1 9.1.1 Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-1 9.1.2 Valued Environmental Components ...... 9-1 9.1.3 Impact Analysis Methodology ...... 9-1 9.1.4 Impact Identification and Assessment ...... 9-2 9.1.5 Residual Impact Classification...... 9-6 9.1.6 Significance ...... 9-6 9.1.7 Confidence in Prediction...... 9-6 9.2 Acoustic Environment...... 9-6 9.2.1 Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-6 9.2.2 Valued Environmental Components ...... 9-6 9.2.3 Impact Analysis Methodology ...... 9-7 9.2.4 Impact Identification and Assessment ...... 9-8 9.2.5 Significance ...... 9-12 9.2.6 Confidence in Prediction...... 9-12 9.3 Hydrology ...... 9-12 9.3.1 Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-12 9.3.2 Valued Environmental Components ...... 9-12 9.3.3 Impact Analysis and Residual Effects...... 9-13 9.4 Groundwater...... 9-13 9.4.1 Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-13 9.4.2 Valued Environmental Components ...... 9-13 9.4.3 Impact Analysis and Residual Effects...... 9-13 9.5 Terrain and Soils ...... 9-14 9.5.1 Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-14 9.5.2 Valued Ecosystem Components...... 9-14 9.5.3 Impact Analysis and Residual Effects...... 9-16 9.5.4 Impact Identification and Assessment ...... 9-18 9.5.5 Significance ...... 9-19 9.5.6 Confidence in Prediction...... 9-19 9.6 Vegetation ...... 9-20 9.6.1 Vegetation Assessment Boundaries...... 9-20 9.6.2 Vegetation Valued Environmental Components ...... 9-20 9.6.3 Vegetation Impact Analysis and Residual Effects ...... 9-24 9.6.4 Vegetation Impact Identification and Assessment ...... 9-25 9.6.5 Vegetation Significance ...... 9-26 9.6.6 Vegetation Confidence in Prediction...... 9-26

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

9.7 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 9-28 9.7.1 Wildlife Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-28 9.7.2 Wildlife Values Environmental Components...... 9-28 9.7.3 Wildlife Impact Analysis ...... 9-30 9.7.4 Wildlife Impact Identification and Assessment...... 9-32 9.7.5 Prediction of Significance ...... 9-37 9.7.6 Confidence in Prediction...... 9-37 9.8 Wetlands...... 9-38 9.8.1 Wetlands Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-38 9.8.2 Wetlands Values Environmental Components ...... 9-38 9.8.3 Impact Analysis...... 9-38 9.8.4 Impact Identification and Assessment ...... 9-40 9.8.5 Significance ...... 9-42 9.8.6 Confidence in Prediction...... 9-42 9.9 Fish and Fish Habitat...... 9-42 9.9.1 Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-42 9.9.2 Valued Ecosystem Component ...... 9-42 9.9.3 Impact Analysis and Residual Effects...... 9-43 9.9.4 Impact Identification and Assessment ...... 9-43 9.9.5 Significance ...... 9-43 9.9.6 Confidence in Prediction...... 9-45 9.10 Heritage Resources...... 9-45 9.10.1 Assessment Boundaries ...... 9-45 9.10.2 Valued Environmental Components ...... 9-45 9.10.3 Impact Analysis and Residual Effects...... 9-45 10.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT...... 10-1 10.1 Assessment Methods and Scope ...... 10-1 10.2 Socio-economic Effects ...... 10-2 10.2.1 Overview...... 10-2 10.2.2 Evaluation of Socio-economic Factors ...... 10-2 10.3 Socio-economic Cumulative Effects ...... 10-4 10.4 Significance Conclusion ...... 10-5 10.5 Prediction Confidence ...... 10-5 11.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 11-1 11.1 Methodology ...... 11-1 11.2 Existing Disturbances ...... 11-2 11.3 Future Disturbances ...... 11-4 11.4 Cumulative Effects Summary ...... 11-6 12.0 INSPECTION, MONITORING, AND FOLLOW-UP ...... 12-1

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

12.1 Compliance and Orientation ...... 12-1 12.2 Inspection and Operations...... 12-1 12.3 Construction Monitoring...... 12-2 12.4 Post-Construction Monitoring and Maintenance...... 12-2 12.5 Decommissioning and Abandonment...... 12-3 13.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 13-1 14.0 CLOSURE...... 14-1 15.0 REFERENCES...... 15-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Summary of Permits/Approvals/Authorizations Required Prior to Construction ...... 1-5 Table 1.2 Concordance of the Environmental and Social Assessment Document with National Energy Board Requirements ...... 1-6 Table 3.1 List of Regulatory and Government Agencies Contacted...... 3-3 Table 4.1 24-hour Measurement Locations...... 4-3 Table 4.2 Alida Source Measurement Locations...... 4-5 Table 5.1 Mean Monthly Temperature and Precipitation at Carlyle, Saskatchewan and Virden, Manitoba Climate Stations...... 5-2 Table 5.2 Hourly Noise Levels without Harvest Event – Site 1 ...... 5-4 Table 5.3 Hourly Sound Levels with Harvest Event – Site 1 ...... 5-5 Table 5.4 Hourly Sound Levels – Site 2 ...... 5-6 Table 5.5 Hourly Sound Levels – Site 3 ...... 5-8 Table 5.6 Hourly Sound Levels – Site 4 ...... 5-9 Table 5.7 Alida Terminal Source Measurements ...... 5-10 Table 5.8 Baseline Noise...... 5-12 Table 5.9 Residential Counts ...... 5-12 Table 5.10 Typical Stratigraphy of the Regional Study Area...... 5-14 Table 5.11 Locations of Proposed Water Courses Crossings along the Pipeline Right-of-Way from the Alida Terminal to the Cromer Terminal...... 5-18 Table 5.12 Fish Species Reported In Watercourses Traversed by the Pipeline Right-Of-Way from the Alida Terminal to the Cromer Terminal...... 5-19 Table 5.13 Soil Series Encountered along the Right-of-Way ...... 5-27 Table 5.14 Summary of Soil Series Crossed by the Proposed Right-of-Way ...... 5-28 Table 5.15 Reclamation Suitability of Upper and Lower Lifts along the Right- of-Way ...... 5-29 Table 5.16 Sites with Elevated Soil Salinity Values (EC >4 dS/m or SAR > 6) ....5-30 Table 5.17 Wind and Water Erosion Risk of Soil Series on the Right-of-Way .....5-31 Table 5.18 Agricultural Capability Classes ...... 5-31 Table 5.19 Agricultural Land Capability Subclasses ...... 5-32 Table 5.20 Agricultural Land Capability of the Soils along the Route from the Alida Terminal to the Cromer Terminal...... 5-32 Table 5.21 Soil Productivity Ratings along the Route from the Alida Terminal to the Cromer Terminal...... 5-33

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table 5.22 Areas of Remnant Natural Habitat along the Route from the Alida Terminal to the Cromer Terminal...... 5-37 Table 5.23 Reservations Related to Wildlife along the Pipeline Right-of-Way from the Alida Terminal to the Cromer Terminal ...... 5-39 Table 5.24 Habitat Types Within the Enbridge Alida to Cromer Pipeline Right- of-Way ...... 5-40 Table 5.25 Mammal Species Abundance and Associated Habitat Types in the Project Area...... 5-41 Table 5.26 Avian Species Abundance and Associated Habitat Types in the Project Area...... 5-43 Table 5.27 Lands Encountered by the Pipeline Segment Rated as Having No Significant (Class 1) to Very Slight (Class 2) Limitations to the Production of Waterfowl from the Alida Terminal to the Cromer Terminal...... 5-44 Table 5.28 Amphibian and Reptile Species Observed and Associated Habitat Types in the Local Study Area...... 5-45 Table 5.29 Number and Type of Wetlands within the Local Study Area ...... 5-52 Table 6.1 Population of Rural Municipalities in the Socio-economic Study Area ...... 6-2 Table 6.2 Select Characteristics of Study Area Communities ...... 6-4 Table 6.3 Study Area First Nation Communities ...... 6-7 Table 7.1 Areas of Saline Soil ...... 7-3 Table 7.2 Relationship Between Soil Texture and Wetness...... 7-3 Table 7.3 Wetland Crossing Mitigation Considering Conditions in 2006...... 7-5 Table 7.4 Summary of Crossing Methods, Mitigation, and Contingency Measures...... 7-7 Table 8.1 Magnitude Definitions for Valued Environmental Components ...... 8-7 Table 8.2 Ecological Context...... 8-12 Table 9.1 Summary of Pipeline Construction Equipment ...... 9-3 Table 9.2 Potential Air Quality Issues, Proposed Mitigation, and Predicted Residual Effects for the Construction Phase of the Project...... 9-4 Table 9.3 Potential Air Quality Issues, Proposed Mitigation, and Predicted Residual Effects for the Operations Phase of the Project ...... 9-5 Table 9.4 Acoustic Environment Valued Environmental Component and Distance from Project Right-of-Way ...... 9-7 Table 9.5 Existing Noise Levels at Selected Receivers ...... 9-7 Table 9.10 Analysis of Noise Contribution from Alida Terminal at Site 1 ...... 9-10 Table 9.11 Residual Impact Analysis for Operations Noise ...... 9-11 Table 9.12 Summary of Soil Series along the Proposed Right-of-Way...... 9-15 Table 9.13 Impact Criteria for the Enbridge Alida to Cromer Pipeline Project...... 9-21 Table 9.14 Vegetation Communities/Habitat Types Within the Enbridge Alida to Cromer Pipeline Right-of-Way...... 9-22 Table 9.15 Potential for Listed Plant Species to Occur within the Vegetation Types in the Project Area ...... 9-24 Table 9.16 Impact Classification of the Vegetation Valued Environmental Components for the Enbridge Alida to Cromer Pipeline Project...... 9-27

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table 9.17 Wildlife Abundance noted within the Local Study Area ...... 9-29 Table 9.18 Wildlife Abundance observed in the Local Study Area...... 9-30 Table 5.19 Habitat Potential for the Valued Environmental Components for the Enbridge Alida to Cromer Pipeline Right-of-Way ...... 9-34 Table 5.20 Impact Classification of the Wildlife Valued Environmental Components for the Enbridge Alida to Cromer Pipeline Project...... 9-35 Table 9.21 Wetlands Crossed by the Alida to Cromer Pipeline Project ...... 9-38 Table 9.22 Impact Classification of the Wetland Valued Environmental Components for the Enbridge Alida to Cromer Pipeline Project...... 9-41 Table 9.23 Impact Criteria for the Enbridge Alida to Cromer Pipeline Project...... 9-44 Table 11.1 Total Wells Drilled to September 15, 2006 compared to September 15, 2005 for Southeastern Saskatchewan ...... 11-3 Table 11.2 Total Wells Drilled to September 18, 2006 compared to September 19, 2005 for Manitoba ...... 11-3 Table 11.3 Well Licences Issued to September 15, 2006 compared to September 15, 2005 for Southeastern Saskatchewan ...... 11-3 Table 11.4 Well Licences Issued to September 18, 2006 compared to September 19, 2005 for Manitoba ...... 11-4 Table 11.5 Projects in Region Undergoing Environmental Assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency...... 11-4 Table 11.6 Projects in the Region Undergoing Environmental Assessment under Provincial Jurisdiction...... 11-5 Table 11.7 Assessed Cumulative Effects and Level of Importance for the Alida to Cromer Pipeline and Facilities Upgrade Project...... 11-7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location Plan...... 1-2 Figure 2 Routing Alternatives ...... 2-4 Figure 3 Towns, Villages, and Hamlets in the Socio-economic Study Area .....2-13 Figure 4 Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations ...... 4-4 Figure 5 Source Measurements taken on the East Side of the Alida Terminal...... 5-10 Figure 6 Source Measurements taken on the East Side of the Alida Terminal...... 5-11 Figure 7 Location of Water Well Querries...... 5-17 Figure 8 Fish Sampling Locations ...... 5-20 Figure 9 Ecological Context for Discipline ...... 8-13

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1 Looking upstream at crossing location, to the south, on unnamed tributary to Lightning Creek SE 22-6-32 W1M...... in order following text Photo 2 Downstream channel of unnamed tributary to Lightning Creek SE 22-6-32 W1M; looking to the north. Photo 3 Crossing location on Lightning Creek NW 31-6-31 W1M; looking southeast. Photo 4 Crossing location on Lightning Creek NW 31-6-31 W1M; looking west. Photo 5 Crossing location on unnamed tributary to Gainsborough Creek SW 13-7-31 W1M; looking southwest. Photo 6 Crossing location on unnamed tributary to Gainsborough Creek SW 13-7-31 W1M; looking southeast. Photo 7 Crossing location on Gainsborough Creek SW 19-7-30 W1M; looking south. Photo 8 Crossing location on Gainsborough Creek SW 19-7-31 W1M; looking north. Photo 9 Crossing location on Graham Creek SE 11-8-30 W1M; looking southeast. Photo 10 Crossing location on Graham Creek SE 11-8-30 W1M; looking southeast. Photo 11 Crossing location on Jackson Creek NW 18-8-29 W1M on MHHC land; looking west. Photo 12 Crossing location on Jackson Creek NW 18-8-29 W1M on MHHC land; looking west. Photo 13 Crossing location on Stony Creek NW 27-8-29 W1M; looking west. Photo 14 Crossing location on Stony Creek NW 27-8-29 W1M, in the same location as Photo 13; looking east. Photo 15 Crossing location on unnamed tributary to Pipestone Creek SW 7-8-28 W1M; looking west. Photo 16 Crossing location on Pipestone Creek SW 17-9-28 W1M; looking south-southeast. Photo 17 Crossing location on Pipestone Creek SW 17-9-28 W1M; looking east. Photo 18 Northern pike captured in the gill net at Pipestone Creek SW 17-09-28 W1M. Photo 19 Crossing location of Jackson Creek NW 18-8-29 W1M; looking north east on MHHC land. Photo 20 Fish and Wildlife Management Funds Lands SE 13-8-30 W1M; looking northeast. Photo 21 View from Jackson Creek looking southwest along ROW towards Saskatchewan Border Fish and Wildlife Management Funds lands NW 18-8-29 W1M. Photo 22 Wetland at NW 5-23-26 W1M proposed road bore extension; looking north along existing ROW.

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF PHOTOS (Continued)

Photo 23 Wetland located on MHHC lands in NW 18-8-29 W1M, looking northeast. Depending on water levels, this area may be directionally drilled. Photo 24 Alida terminal, looking southwest from the ROW. Photo 25 Cromer terminal, looking northeast. Photo 26 Looking southwest along the proposed ROW at NW 1-9-29 W1M. Photo 27 Looking northeast along the proposed ROW at NE 25-6-32 W1M.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I Conceptual Drawings of ACCE Project Components ...... in order following text Appendix II Enbridge’s Environmental Policy Appendix III Consultation Report Appendix IV Noise Assessment Supporting Data Appendix V Heritage Supporting Documents Appendix VI Well Water Search Appendix VII Aquatic Habitat Summary Appendix VIII Alignment Sheets Appendix IX List of Soil Observations and Series Description Appendix X Soil Chemistry Results Appendix XI Environmental Protection Plan

Golder Associates

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym Definition ACCE Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion MBCDC Manitoba Conservation Data Centre AAAQOs Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CESA Cumulative Effects Study Area CLI Canada Land Inventory CO carbon monoxide COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CPR Canadian Pacific Railway CSA Canadian Standards Association dBA A-weighted decibels DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada Enbridge Westspur Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. EPP Environmental Protection Plan ERP Emergency Response Plan ESA Environmental and Social Assessment EUB Energy and Utilities Board FWDF Saskatchewan Fish and Wildlife Development Fund GHA Game Hunting Area GHG greenhouse gas Golder Golder Associates Ltd. HRIAs Heritage Resources Impact Assessments INAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Leq Integrated linear average

LFmax Absolute maximum

LFmin Absolute minimum

LAeq Integrated average

LAFmax Absolute maximum

LAFmin Absolute minimum LSA Local Study Area masl Metres above sea level MHHC Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation NEB National Energy Board NGL natural gas liquids

NH3 ammonia

NOX nitrogen oxides NTS National Topographic Series OD outside diameter

Golder Associates

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

Acronym Definition PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAMZ Parkland Airshed Management Zone PC Pipeline Crossing PM particulate matter Project Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion Project PSL Permissible Sound Levels RM Rural Municipality ROW right-of-way RSA regional study area SAF Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food SCDC Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre SE Saskatchewan Environment

SO2 sulphur dioxide TERA TERA Environmental Consultants Program public consultation program TRS total reduced sulphur UTM universal transverse mercator VEC Valued Environmental Component VOCs volatile organic compounds WHPA Wildlife Habitat Protection Act WMZ Wildlife Management Zones

Golder Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. (Enbridge Westspur) is proposing to expand the capacity of its current Westspur transmission system through the construction of the Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion (ACCE) Project, referred to as the “Project”. The Project will consist of the construction of a 60 km long, 168.3 mm (6 inch) outside diameter (OD) pipeline to transport natural gas liquids (NGL) from Alida, Saskatchewan to Cromer, Manitoba (Figure 1), and the conversion of the existing, adjacent 324 mm (12 inch) OD Westspur pipeline from Alida to Cromer from its current NGL service to crude oil service.

The new 20 m wide Right-of-Way (ROW) for the proposed 168.3 mm pipeline will be adjacent for its entire distance to an existing 15 m (50 foot) wide ROW containing the 324 mm (12 inch) OD Westspur NGL pipeline and a 432 mm (16 inch) OD line transporting crude oil. Construction is proposed to begin in July 2007, once the necessary regulatory approvals have been received, and is anticipated to be completed by September/October 2007.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Enbridge Westspur to prepare and submit the environmental impact assessment and socio-economic assessment report on their behalf in its application under the National Energy Board (NEB) Act, Section 52 for the Project.

This document addresses the construction, reclamation, and subsequent operation of the Project, in consultation with the affected communities within the Project region, to minimize the impact to the environment and traditional land uses, while optimizing the socio-economic impacts to the local communities. The impacts to the communities were determined largely through Enbridge Westspur’s public consultation program, which is described in subsequent sections of the application.

Included in this Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) is a description of the components of the Project, a description of the biophysical setting for the Project, the proposed environmental protection and/or mitigation options, the environmental impact analysis and the socio-economic assessment on the local communities. An assessment of the potential residual and cumulative impacts of the Project is included in the final sections of the ESA.

The following document follows the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2006) using Guide A – Facilities Applications (NEB Act Section 52 and Section 58).

Golder Associates

December 2006 - 1-3 - 06-1361-319

1.1 Proponent

The proponent for the ACCE Project will be Enbridge Westspur. Enbridge Westspur operates an oil trunkline and gathering system located in southeast Saskatchewan. It transports crude oil received from gathering systems and from truck unloading terminals; it also transports NGL from the Steelman gas processing plant west of Alida. Construction of the Enbridge Westspur system commenced in 1955 and was acquired by Enbridge Inc. in 1985.

Enbridge Westspur is wholly-owned, indirectly, by the Enbridge Income Fund. The Enbridge Income Fund is an unincorporated open-ended trust established under the laws of the Province of Alberta on May 22, 2003. The operation and administration of the Enbridge Westspur system has been contracted to Enbridge (Saskatchewan) Operating Services Inc., an affiliate of Enbridge Inc.

Enbridge Inc. is one of the largest energy transmission companies in North America and operates the longest petroleum transportation pipeline system in the world. It owns and operates the largest gas distribution company in Canada. Its system is comprised of more than 40,000 km of pipe that transports more than two million barrels of petroleum products and more than 100 billion cubic feet of gas per day. This experience has given Enbridge unique and extensive experience in developing, managing and optimizing both natural gas and liquids pipelines.

1.2 Contacts

The contact person for the regulatory approvals component of the ACCE Project is:

Andre Kerkovius, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 3000, 425 – 1st Street SW Calgary Alberta, T2P 3L8 Phone (403) 231-5912; Fax (403) 231-7380 [email protected]

The contact person for the environmental approvals component of the ACCE Project is:

Ms. Femke Want, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 10201 Jasper Avenue Edmonton Alberta, T5J 2J9 Phone (780) 420-8544 [email protected]

Golder Associates December 2006 - 1-4 - 06-1361-319

1.3 Regulatory Approvals and Authorizations

Enbridge Westspur believes the federal permits and authorizations that will be necessary for the implementation of the Project are:

• a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to Section 52 in Part III of the NEB Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-7; • approval by the Governor in Council pursuant to Part III of the NEB Act; • approval for the change in service of a pipeline pursuant to Section 43 of the Onshore Pipeline Regulations - 1999; and, • approval by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pursuant to paragraph 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14 is not anticipated at this time as Enbridge Westspur expects to meet the conditions and carry out measures to protect Fish and Fish Habitat in applicable Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Operational Statements.

Table 1.1 contains a summary of the potential permits and approvals required prior to construction of the Project.

The environmental assessment processes to which the project is subjected are those set out in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the requirements of the Board under section 52 of the NEB Act. While the ESA will serve as the primary environmental application for the project, other provincial approvals will also be necessary. The ESA is intended to meet the requirements of Saskatchewan Environment (SE), Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (MBCDC), and Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (SAF).

Golder Associates December 2006 - 1-5 - 06-1361-319

Table 1.1 Summary of Permits/Approvals/Authorizations Required Prior to Construction

Applicable Permit/Approvals or Section or Act Review Process Primary Contact Agent Associated Required Regulations Canada Certificate of public Section 52 convenience and National Energy Board necessity pursuant Exemption from s.33 of The National Energy Section 58 the National Energy National Energy Board Board Act Board Section 43 Change of service and On Shore increase in operating National Energy Board Pipeline pressure Regulations Fisheries Act Letter of Advice Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Environmental Environment Canada-Canadian Review Required Assessment Act Wildlife Service Environment Canada-Canadian Species at Risk Act Review Required Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Environment Canada-Canadian Review Required Conventions Act Wildlife Service Transportation Act Review Required Transport Canada Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Review Required Saskatchewan Environment Environmental Act Both a Requirements Heritage Resources Branch Heritage Property Act Letter and a Clearance Department of Culture, Youth and Letter Recreation Saskatchewan Industry and Pipeline Act Review Required Resources Wildlife Act Review Required Saskatchewan Environment Saskatchewan Agriculture and Crown Land Act Pipeline Easement Food Environmental Aquatic Habitat Management and Saskatchewan Environment Protection Permit Protection Act Manitoba Manitoba Environmental Manitoba Conservation Data Review Required Assessment Act Centre Manitoba Conservation Data Endangered Species Act Review Required Centre Letter of Requirements Heritage Manitoba Act from a formal Review Historic Resources Branch Required Manitoba Conservation Data Wildlife Act Review Required Centre Manitoba Conservation Data Fisheries Act Work Permit Centre

Golder Associates December 2006 - 1-6 - 06-1361-319

1.4 Concordance Table

To assist the regulators in locating requirements in the document, the following Table 1.2 has been included as a reference.

Table 1.2 Concordance of the Environmental and Social Assessment Document with National Energy Board Requirements

Component Addressed in Section Description of the Environment and Socio-economic Setting Identify and describe the current biophysical and socio-economic 1. 5.0 and 6.0 setting. • Describe and quantify the biophysical and socio-economic elements in the study area, which are of ecological, economic, or human importance. 2. • Determine which biophysical or socio-economic elements 5.0 and 6.0 require more detailed analysis. • Detailed information related to biophysical or socio-economic elements from Tables A-4* and A-5* where applicable. Provide supporting evidence for information and data collected, analysis completed, conclusions reached and for any professional 3. 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 judgment or experience provided in meeting these information requirements. Identify, describe, and justify the methodology used for any surveys. 4. Justification or plan for further surveys if season for a survey 4.0 conducted was not optimal. Effects Assessment 1. Identify potential effects associated with the proposed project. 8.12 and 9.0 For those biophysical and socio-economic elements that require

further analysis, describe, quantify and justify:

• spatial and temporal boundaries for the effects analysis of the biophysical or socio-economic element, or valued component, 8.1 including how this element could change from baseline over the 2. life of the project.

• local and regional conditions of the biophysical or socio- 5.0 and 6.0 economic element, or valued component.

• key receptors that could potentially be affected by the project 9.0 and a change in the element of concern. An effects analysis of the project for each biophysical or socio- 3. 9.0 economic element, or valued component. Detailed information outlined in Tables A-4* and A-5* for elements 4. 5.0, 6.0, and 9.0 identified in Table A-3*.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 1-7 - 06-1361-319

Table 1.2 Concordance of the Environmental and Social Assessment Document with National Energy Board Requirements (Continued)

Component Addressed in Section Mitigation Measures Describe the general and specific mitigation measures and their effectiveness to address the project-specific effects, or clearly 1. 7.0 and Appendix XI reference sections of company manuals that provide mitigation measures. Describe how commitments regarding mitigative measures will be 2. 12.0 communicated to field staff for implementation. Describe any plans or program that may be used to mitigate 3. 7.0 potential effects. Evaluation of Significance 1. Evaluate the likelihood and significance of residual adverse effects. 9.0 Define the “significant effect” for each biophysical or socio-economic 2. 8.1.4 and 8.2 element, or valued component. Describe the methodology for determining whether the project is 3. 8.1 likely to cause significant adverse effects and justify conclusions. Cumulative Effects Assessment Identify potential effects for which residual effects are also predicted 1. 8.1.2 and 9.0 in the environmental and social assessment. • For each biophysical or socio-economic element, or valued component where residual effects have been identified, provide 11.0 a description of the spatial and temporal boundaries used to assess the potential cumulative effects.

2. • Identify other projects and activities that have occurred or are 11.2 and 11.3 likely to occur within the boundaries.

• Identify whether those projects and activities will produce effects on the biophysical or socio-economic element, valued 11.1 components within the identified boundaries. Provide cumulative effects analysis of the proposed project in 3. combination with other projects and activities for each biophysical or 11.0 socio-economic element, or valued component. Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Effects Describe the general and specific mitigation measures that are 1. technically and economically feasible to address the cumulative 11.0 effects. Evaluation of Significance of Cumulative Effects Evaluate the likelihood and significance of adverse residual 1. 11.4 cumulative effects. Define “significant cumulative effect” for each biophysical or socio- 2. 8.1, 8.2, and 11.0 economic element, or valued component. Describe the methodology for determining whether the project is 3. likely to cause significant cumulative effects and justify any 8.1, 8.2, and 11.0 conclusions.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 1-8 - 06-1361-319

Table 1.2 Concordance of the Environmental and Social Assessment Document with National Energy Board Requirements (Continued)

Component Addressed in Section Inspection Monitoring and Follow-up Describe plans to ensure compliance with biophysical and socio- 1. 12.1 economic commitments. Evaluate the need to monitor the elements potentially affected by the project and if needed, describe the environmental monitoring 2. 12.3 and 12.4 plan to be implemented during construction, reclamation, and operation of the project. Where a project triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, evaluate the need for element-specific follow-up programs to verify the accuracy of the environmental and social 3. 12.0 assessment and to determine the effectiveness of any mitigation measures that were implemented, particularly those mitigation measures that are new or unproven. Specific Environmental Components Physical environment 5.1, 5.4, and 5.5 Soil and soil productivity 5.7 and 9.5 Vegetation 5.8 and 9.6 Water quality and quantity 5.5, 5.6, and 9.4 Fish and fish habitat 5.6 and 9.9 Wetlands 5.10 and 9.8 Wildlife and wildlife habitat 5.9 and 9.7 Species at Risk or Species of Special Status and related habitat 5.8, 5.9, 9.6, and 9.7 Air quality 5.2 and 9.1 Acoustic environment 5.3 and 9.2 Human occupancy and resource use 6.1, 6.2, and 10.0 Heritage resources 6.3 and 9.10 Traditional land and resource use 6.1, 6.2, and 10.0 Social and cultural well-being 6.1, 6.2, and 10.0 Human health and aesthetics 6.1, 6.2, and 10.0 Infrastructure and services 6.1, 6.2, and 10.0 Employment and economy 6.1, 6.2, and 10.0 Note: * National Energy Board 2006.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-1 - 06-1361-319

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Purpose and Need of Project

2.1.1 Pipeline Capacity Considerations and Alternatives to the Project

The capacity of the existing Alida to Cromer system is being expanded in response to an anticipated increase in the supply of crude oil from existing and newly discovered oil fields in central and southeastern Saskatchewan.

Shippers were offered two options by Enbridge Westspur:

A. Expand crude capacity by adding a new booster station between the Enbridge Westspur Alida Terminal and the Enbridge Pipelines Terminal at Cromer. B. Construct a new 168.3 mm (6 inch) pipeline from Alida to Cromer to transport NGL’s and convert existing 324 mm (12 inch) pipeline back to crude service.

As of March 28, 2006, letters of support from shippers indicated an 80% to 20% preference for Option B. This option is anticipated to increase crude oil delivery capacity by about 20%, from 25,000 m3/day to 29,900 m3/day.

Enbridge Westspur also considered not proceeding with the Project as an additional alternative, but determined that the need to increase capacity outweighed the risks of not proceeding.

2.1.2 Pipeline Tolls

The estimated $12 to $14 million cost of the ACCE Project (Option B) is expected to be recovered through revenues collected on the incremental volumes and through a $.19 per/m3 increase in each of the Enbridge Westspur crude oil tolls destined for Cromer. The shippers have indicated this tolling impact is acceptable to them.

2.2 Project Components

A conceptual drawing of the components of the ACCE Project is shown in Appendix I. Detailed engineering will determine the precise details and configuration of the ACCE Project. This information will be presented to regulatory and other government authorities when it becomes available.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-2 - 06-1361-319

The NGL pipeline system, including line pipe, valves, fittings and other components, will be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations (1999), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662-03 Standard, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, and with Enbridge Westspur’s standards and manuals currently on file with the Board (or being updated and not yet refilled with the Board). The new pipeline will be incorporated into the integrity management plan for the Enbridge Westspur system.

2.2.1 Pipeline

As presented in Section 1.1, the proposed 60 km, 168.3 mm (6 inch) OD pipeline will transport NGL from the terminal in Alida, Saskatchewan to the terminal in Cromer, Manitoba. The proposed 20 m wide ROW will be immediately adjacent to the existing 15 m (50 feet) wide ROW, which has been in place since 1956. This ROW contains two operating pipelines: the 324 mm (12 inch) OD Enbridge Westspur pipeline which currently transports NGL’s and a 432 mm (16 inch) OD line that transports crude oil. The 20 m width of the new ROW will provide for most construction activities and for a travel lane. Additional temporary workspace will be required in certain areas for construction and travel, such as at water crossings. Where possible, the existing 15 m ROW will be utilized as temporary workspace.

Hydrotesting of the converted 324 mm pipeline and the proposed 168.3 mm pipeline will also be conducted. In conducting this hydrotest, Enbridge Westspur will utilize the water in the test holding ponds currently on Enbridge Inc.’s Cromer terminal site.

2.2.2 Booster and Valve Stations

An NGL booster station will be built at the existing Alida terminal, including a new 800 HP booster pump to transport NGL’s in the proposed 168.3 mm pipeline. A new 2000 HP booster pump (with a 2000 HP back-up pump) will be added to transport crude oil in the existing 324 mm line once the line is converted to crude from its current NGL service. The existing 432 mm line has a 2000 HP pump and a 1600 HP pump that run continuously. After conversion of the pipeline, the 432 mm line will operate with a 2000 HP pump with a 1500 HP booster pump as back-up. The booster station will also require the incorporation of a flare system, an emergency shutdown valve, safety control systems, and pigging facilities.

The construction of an above ground valve station for the NGL pipeline, on a former booster station site owned by Enbridge Westspur is proposed at approximately the midpoint of the pipeline. The valve station will be designed to accommodate the possible future addition of a booster pump.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-3 - 06-1361-319

2.2.3 Pipeline Conversion

Subsequent to the commissioning of the new Alida to Cromer NGL pipeline, the conversion of the existing and adjacent 324 mm (12 inch) OD Westspur pipeline (from Alida to Cromer) from its current NGL service to crude oil service.

2.2.4 Temporary Facilities

Enbridge Westspur does not plan to construct any temporary facilities to complete the Project at this time.

2.3 Route Selection

Route selection is one of the primary mitigation options for avoiding conflicts with environmental, social and/or heritage resources. Typically, route selection uses a filter process, progressing from a coarse filter (i.e., selection of a corridor), down to alternate routes within the corridor, and finally a fine filter (i.e., selection of a ROW).

The environmental routing criteria for the Project were:

• follow the existing ROW to the maximum extent feasible; • take advantage of previously established control points, such as drainage crossings; • avoid previously undisturbed environmentally sensitive habitat; • minimize the number of new wetlands crossed; • minimize the crossing of tree habitat; • minimize the amount of sensitive terrain crossed; • minimize disturbance to habitats of listed flora and fauna; • select a route that was feasible to reclaim; and, • avoid known heritage resource sites.

The original Alida to Cromer pipeline was constructed in 1955. The current 15 m wide ROW is an existing disturbance corridor. During the evaluation of routing options, and subsequent field investigations, it was evident that routing for the original pipeline considered wetland avoidance and appropriate creek crossing locations. As such, rather than evaluating entirely new routes, Enbridge Westspur considered deviations (Figure 2) to the existing route during the route selection process.

Golder Associates

December 2006 - 2-5 - 06-1361-319

The ROW was evaluated based on the above criteria, and deviations were considered only where there could be potential to reduce environmental and social impacts or to address technical or safety issues. Deviations from the current alignment that were evaluated, resulted in conflicts with as many, or more wetlands of equal or greater sensitivity or presented pipeline engineering constraints (e.g., bending). For example, the primary deviation considered for the alignment was in the vicinity of the E ½ 13-8-30 W1M (Saskatchewan Fish and Wildlife Development Fund [FWDF] land) and W ½ 18-8-29 W1M (Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation [MHHC] land). Both a south and north deviation around these locations were examined. The north deviation required approximately 0.8 km of new ROW length, crossed 51 new wetlands, and crossed Graham and Jackson Creeks at new locations. The south deviation required approximately 1.2 km of new ROW length, crossed 48 new wetlands, and crossed Graham and Jackson Creeks at new locations.

Considering the above and the success of the reclamation efforts noted on the existing ROW at the above land locations during 2006 field assessment, deviating from the original ROW route was not considered to be advantageous. Therefore, Enbridge Westspur determined that, from an environmental perspective, including construction, reclamation and operations issues, aligning the new ROW along the existing ROW best addressed the routing criteria.

The justification for routing the new ROW contiguous with the existing ROW includes:

• No environmental, heritage, socio-economic, or engineering constraints are encountered along the existing corridor that cannot be effectively mitigated or compensated. • There have been no environmental issues related to the reclamation and operation of the existing ROW. • Effects associated with a widening of an existing pipeline ROW would be incremental, while a new route would affect additional lands and wetlands. • The existing ROW has been in place for 50 years and is well known to all interested parties. • Adequate workspace and access are available along the route. • Pipeline surveillance and maintenance activities can be conducted more efficiently for pipelines located within a common ROW, compared to two ROWs that are geographically separated.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-6 - 06-1361-319

2.4 Construction Techniques

The pipeline will be constructed using conventional trenching construction techniques, which includes stripping of topsoil over the trench and on the spoil side prior to excavation of the trench except where trenchline only stripping has been proposed as mitigation for habitat protection. Other construction activities will follow typical methods, which consist of legal land survey, preparation of the ROW including clearing, grading, stringing, welding, and lowering of pipe joints into the trench, and soil replacement.

2.4.1 Clearing

Once all federal and provincial regulatory requirements have been met, clearing activities on the ROW would begin. Clearing includes the removal of shrubs, trees, or other obstacles lying within the confines of the ROW that may potentially impair construction activities and vehicle movement, or threaten the safety of construction personnel. As the majority of the proposed ROW crosses open cultivated lands or native grassland habitat, approximately 4.2% of the proposed ROW will need clearing for pipe installation. It is anticipated the majority of the clearing will be required at aspen bluffs, shelterbelts, and riparian areas associated with watercourses.

The clearing activities will comply with Environment Canada’s Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Timber will be salvaged, mulched, or burned at the landowner’s request and stumps will be grubbed where necessary and disposed of appropriately as directed by the construction supervisor.

2.4.2 Grading

Grading may be required to establish a level safe working surface for site-specific construction operations such as directional drill set up locations. However, due to the terrain traversed by the majority of the pipeline route, little grading or other earthwork is anticipated within the ROW. However, local or site-specific micro-relief variations may warrant limited grading, particularly for roads and approaches.

Prior to grading on cultivated portions of the ROW, the trench and spoil side will be stripped of topsoil which will be stockpiled adjacent to the trench on the work side. Grading on pasture and native vegetation will be avoided. Subsoils will then be salvaged and stored separately from the topsoil. This separation is necessary to avoid admixing, thereby enhancing reclamation of the sites.. In the event that the construction schedule is delayed so that the topsoil is frozen, a ripper blade may be used to break up the topsoil before it is moved to the side of the trench. Where bell holes are required at the tie-in points, topsoil will be stripped over the excavation site and stockpiled separately from any spoil. Stripping under frozen conditions is expected to result in limited admixing, due to adherence between topsoil and subsoil layers.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-7 - 06-1361-319

2.4.3 Trenching

The trench for the pipeline must provide a minimum cover of 1.5 m and a trench width of approximately 0.5 m. As noted earlier, it is expected that a track hoe will be used for trenching and excavated subsoil material will be stored adjacent to the trench, on the spoil side of the ROW.

2.4.4 Pipelaying

Sections of steel pipe will be transported to the ROW by trucks and strung adjacent to the trench. The pipe will then be welded and all welds will be inspected, covered with shrink sleeves and the pipe will be “jeeped” to check for nicks or scrapes that could jeopardize the integrity of the pipe. The welded pipe will then be lowered into the trench.

2.4.5 Backfilling

After the pipe has been lowered, the trench will be filled with the previously excavated spoil and a low roach left in place. Pipe protection (e.g., sand padding) will be placed around the pipe in rocky areas to ensure the pipe is not damaged by rock to pipe contact. Trench breakers will be installed where necessary along the trench line to address subsurface flow of water. The final step in backfilling is the replacement of any topsoil or sod material that has been stockpiled. Replacement of topsoil occurs after a roach has been constructed and only during dry, non-frozen soil conditions (i.e., fall 2007 before heavy frost or postponed until the spring 2008).

2.4.6 Reclamation and Restoration

After construction, the site will be prepared, as needed prior to topsoil replacement. Specific practices, such as returning graded areas to their original slope, deep ripping of compacted subsoils, erosion control, and other mitigations are described in Appendix VIII.

All topsoil, as defined by the total depth of the A-horizon, will be salvaged and stockpiled on the work side according to methods described in the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) (Appendix XI). Subsoil will be stockpiled separately and replaced prior to topsoil replacement.

After soil replacement, fields supporting native vegetation, pasture, or hayland will be seeded according to methods described in the EPP (Appendix XI).

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-8 - 06-1361-319

It is anticipated that the lands will be restored to comparable land use capacity following application of the mitigation and environmental protection measures proposed for this Project.

2.5 Pipeline Integrity Validation and Testing

Enbridge Westspur will validate the integrity of the new pipeline through CSA and/or NEB approved methods prior to commissioning the pipeline. This will be accomplished using non-destructive examination and hydrostatic tests when the pipeline is filled with water to a pressure beyond normal daily operating pressures.

Water required for the hydrotests will be supplied by the test water holding ponds at Enbridge Pipeline Inc.’s Cromer Terminal. The water will be returned to the pond after testing when the water quality is comparable to the pond water quality prior to the hydrotest.

The new 168.3 mm NGL line integrity will be confirmed by hydrotesting after construction of the line is complete and prior to commissioning. During construction Enbridge Quality Assurance guidelines will ensure the integrity of the installation, in particular, through non-destructive examination of the welded sections of the line.

Hydrotesting of the 168.3 mm line will follow Enbridge requirements of a minimum four hour strength test and by a minimum four hour leak test. The volume of water for the test will be approximately 1,200 m3.

The 324 mm line will undergo an engineering assessment, prior to NEB approval, for converting the line to crude service from NGL. This assessment will provide evidence to demonstrate that the integrity of the line will be fit for the proposed purpose. The assessment will include, but will not be limited to, the following activities:

• description of the line; • failure and repair history, if any; • proposed operation; • metal loss inspection via smart pigging; • corrosion assessment via smart pigging; and, • mechanical damage assessment.

Provided approval is given to re-rate the line, then hydrotesting will be conducted in accordance with Enbridge Westspur standard practices, as described above. The volume of water required for testing the 324 mm line will be approximately 4,500 m3.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-9 - 06-1361-319

It is likely that the water will contain trace amounts of hydrocarbons due to the existing service. This hydrocarbon will be dealt with at Cromer under existing Enbridge Westspur practices for the safe disposal of any water being discharged from the holding pond.

Subsequent to the commissioning of the two new flow lines they will fall under Enbridge Westspur's pipeline integrity management program to ensure and maintain pipeline safety.

2.6 Construction Schedule

Once regulatory approvals have been received, it is anticipated that construction of the Project will begin in July 2007 and be completed in September/October 2007.

2.7 Waste Disposal

The anticipated Project wastes are typical pipeline construction wastes, such as scrap materials, used lubricants, and domestic garbage. Project operations are also expected to produce used lubricants, oily rags, and chemical containers. All waste will be disposed of at an approved site or, in the case of the chemical containers, returned to the supplier. The contractor, in accordance with Enbridge Pipelines Inc.’s Waste Management Plan, will handle waste management and disposal during the Project.

2.8 Emergency Response Plan

The existing Enbridge Westspur’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP) will be used in the event of a Project emergency. Enbridge Westspur will immediately notify the applicable regulators and the NEB in the event of any health or environmentally threatening emergency or off-lease spills. A cooperative contingency plan will be in place.

Emergency response actions, including notification and incident command, will be initiated in accordance with Section 02 of Book 7: Emergency Response. Spill containment, recovery, and clean-up shall be conducted in accordance with Section 04 of Book 7: Emergency Response.

A spill prevention program will be implemented and followed. Equipment will be well maintained and inspected on a regular basis to limit the potential for malfunctions.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-10 - 06-1361-319

All mobile construction equipment will be serviced and refuelled maintaining a minimum distance of 30 m from watercourses or wetlands. Stationary equipment within this buffer will have an impervious means of secondary containment on site prior to servicing and refuelling. All wastes will be located at least 100 m from any waterbody including temporary drainages, and will be sufficiently bermed or otherwise contained to prevent contaminating any waterbody. A designated site will be available for all emergency response materials. Any spills will be cleaned up and reported immediately to the Chief Inspector. A copy of Book 7: Emergency Response shall be kept with the Chief Inspector.

Equipment operators and crews will have fire-fighting equipment on hand during fire hazard. If extremely dry grass conditions exist during warm weather, a water truck will be on standby.

2.9 Effects of the Environment on the Project

The environment of the area influences the proposed Project schedule, scope of work, routing, construction and production methods, and mitigative and remedial measures required to minimize the impacts resulting from the Project. Enbridge Westspur expects that the environment (i.e., weather and climate) will influence the Project by affecting other aspects of the natural environment, such as hydrology (affected by rainfall and snowfall), ground conditions (soft soil caused by rainfall), and vegetation (affected by climate). The Project will be constructed in accordance with Enbridge Westspur’s environmental policy (Appendix II).

Area climate and terrain directly affect the timing and scheduling of the Project. Terrain also influenced route alignment, because access road locations, pipeline placement, and locations of other project components, including staging areas, temporary work areas and other facilities require suitable soil conditions for proper engineering.

Wetland areas, watercourses, soil conditions, vegetation community types, and wildlife habitat, all had an influence on routing decisions, as sensitive areas must either be avoided to the extent practical, or mitigation measures must be incorporated.

The existence of fish bearing watercourses or potential fish habitat affects routing and siting (i.e., best crossing location of a drainage) of Project components, the construction methods (i.e., directional drill versus open cut trenching), timing windows that are appropriate, and the mitigation (e.g., silt fence) that is designed into the Project.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-11 - 06-1361-319

The lack of water sources in the area in the form of large, permanent wetlands or watercourses places restrictions on water use, particularly for hydrostatic testing. Water must either be taken from larger watercourses, hauled from greater distances at increased expense, or taken from man-made ponds (i.e., Cromer Pond).

Climate change was also considered during the planning phase for the Project. The effect of climate change (sometimes simplistically referred to as global warming) on the Project was considered during development of mitigation and contingency measures that have been considered in the design of the Project so that environmental stressors (e.g., weather, hydrology, storms) that could result from year-to-year fluctuations in weather patterns or from changes in the climate will not adversely effect the safe operation of the Project.

While the Project could potentially influence climate change, in terms of increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, no long term increase in GHG emissions are expected and it is anticipated that warmer weather will not have any negative impacts on the Project.

Community concerns and input from public consultation, and initial regulatory consultation also influenced the Project. As such, information that was provided to Enbridge Westspur by the land owners, communities, First Nations, and regulators was incorporated into the planning of the Project.

2.10 Local Study Area

2.10.1 Environmental Study Area

The local study area (LSA) includes the defined Project footprint of a 60 km long corridor, located between Alida, Saskatchewan to Cromer, Manitoba. Along this 60 km corridor, the Project area will include the proposed 20 m wide ROW, in addition to the existing 15 m ROW. Through consultation with Enbridge Westspur, an understanding of site conditions and Golder’s technical procedures, the environmental study area for this Project was extended by 500 m on either side of the current pipeline centre line, to encompass a 1.0 km buffer around disturbance footprint. Watercourse crossings were assessed 100 m upstream and up to 300 m downstream of each crossing site. Photos 24 to 27 show the project components.

The regional study area (RSA) is defined as a 5 km buffer around the LSA, and beyond regional, is outside the RSA, for purposes of this ESA.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 2-12 - 06-1361-319

For the noise assessment, the study area was extended to 1.5 km at the Alida Terminal due to the addition of operations related noise sources (booster pumps) at this location.

The air quality assessment study area was also extended to include the Alida Terminal, so that potential air quality sources at the terminal could be included in the assessment.

2.10.2 Socio-economic and Consultation Study Area

The Project will involve construction activities near three separate locations (the Village of Alida, the Town of Redvers, and the Village of Cromer) and along the existing Alida to Cromer ROW. The Project will traverse four sparsely-populated Rural Municipality (RM): Reciprocity No. 32, Storthoaks No. 31, and Antler No. 61 in southeastern Saskatchewan, and the RM of Pipestone in southwestern Manitoba. There are 53 residences and approximately 100 landowners or tenants located within a 1.5 km radius of the proposed new pipeline. A small number of Villages - Alida, Bellegarde, and Cromer - are within a 3 km radius of the existing ROW and have a combined population of approximately 250 (Figure 3). The town of Redvers, 6 km west of the ROW, is the largest population centre near the ROW, with approximately 917 permanent residents.

The study area also includes the larger centres of Estevan, Saskatchewan (population 10,242), approximately 85 km from the Alida terminal and Virden, Manitoba (population 3,109), near the Cromer terminal. These communities are included as part of the study area, along with Redvers, as they have larger workforces that may be sourced for positions on the project. Worker accommodations for those traveling from outside of the area are available in these centres as well as a variety of goods and services.

Golder Associates Project: I:\2006\06-1361\06-1361-319\Projects\Fig3_socio_ec_towns_85x11_Dec7th.mxd Plot: I:\2006\06-1361\06-1361-319\Plots\Fig3_socio_ec_towns_85x11_Dec7th.pdf

200000 225000 250000 275000 300000 325000 350000 375000

H Dumas IG HIGHWAY 7 H 11 Kelso W Lenore Elkhorn AY Ocean Man 69A Golden West No. 95 Doonside 1 Harmsworth Hazelwood HIGHWAY 48 Fillmore No. 96 Handsworth Fairlight Creelman Wawken No. 93

0 Hargrave 0

0 H Kenosee Park Walpole Virden 0 0 IG Ocean Man 69E Kenosee Lake 0 5 5 H 1 Maryfield Kola 2 W Wallace 2 Warmley 0 Walpole No. 92 5 5 A Hazelwood No. 94 6 Woodworth Gapview 5 Y 5

Y 33 Cannington Lake A Maryfield No. 91 Ryerson Heward Ocean Man 69 W

Carlyle Lake Resort H HIG HWA G Y I Butler Maples 1 H Mair Griffin No. 66 White Bear 70 Ebor Parkman Cromer Scarth HIGHWAY 13 Brock No. 64 ³ Froude Algar Stoughton 0 Cherry Point

Moose Mountain No. 63 0

Innes 7

4 Forget Y 5 H Saskatchewan Manitoba

0 IGHW 0 A 0 Kisbey Arcola A Pipestone 0 Y 0 Y 13 Sifton 6

0 Carlyle 0

W A Arcola Manor

0 Ewart 0

Tecumseh No. 65 Y Antler No. 61 H

0 W 0

Huntoon A G 5 5

5 Belleview 5

G H I Redvers H Manor

H Wordsworth

Viewfield G Antler I Sinclair Wauchope HIGHWAY 2 H Reston HIGHWAY 705 Redvers Frys Findlay Pipestone Willmar H Linklater

Benson I

Bellegarde 0

H 3

W 6

Cameron Y Browning A Woodley Y

Y HIGHWAY 7 St. Antoine A 02 HIG W HWAY 702 Cantal 6 W

0 H

Benson No. 35 H

HIG G HW G 0 A 0 Y 361 I Lampman I Albert 0 0

H HIGHW H 0 AY 361 0

5 Tilston Bede 5 Bryant 9 7 Broomhill 7 Alida Cullen 5 4 4 3 4 0 Lampman Y 5 5

0 0 6

6 6

0 Y

Y Y Bernice H 0

A Fertile

I 6 A G A Browning No. 34

W H G

Y W Macoun W W H

H A

H A H Napinka G Steelman

Y I G G Moose Creek No. 33 W

I I 3 H

H 9 H Alameda

G Alameda Reciprocity No. 32 I

H Melita HIGHWAY 3

8 2 Hitchcock AY 1 GHW 5 HI H 4 I Elva 9 GH Outram Hirsch Oxbow WA Medora Y D

Y 0 Frobisher 18 0

R 0 0

A Estevan Foeda Glen Ewen Carnduff 0 0 Cambria No. 6 HIGHWAY 18 Edward Pierson L

W 0 0

5 Brenda 5 H 4 4

C Coalfields No. 4 G

5 I Carievale 5

Estevan Airport Coalfields V

Mount Pleasant No. 2 8 Argyle No. 1 O Roche Percee R

Arthur P Estevan No. 5 A W Cameron HIGHWAY 703 Enniskillen No. 3 H G I Coulter H Cranmer North Portal Northgate Lyleton

200000 225000 250000 275000 300000 325000 350000 375000

LEGEND 10 0 20

SCALE 1:775 000 KILOMETRES PROVINCIAL BORDER FIRST NATIONS RESERVE PROJECT MUNICIPAL AND RURAL DISTRICT PIPELINE BUFFER (3KM) ENBRIDGE PIPELINE INC. PIPELINE ALIDA TO CROMER PIPELINE PRINCIPAL HWY TITLE TOWNS, VILLAGES AND HAMLETS IN SECONDARY HWY THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AREA POPULATED PLACE PROJECT No. 06-1361-319 4000 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 REFERENCE DESIGN LH 17 Aug. 2006 Highway, town, village and hamlet data provided by DMTI. GIS JBG 25 Sept. 2006 CHECK ER 07 Dec. 2006 FIGURE: 3 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 27 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 14 Calgary, Alberta REVIEW DJ 07 Dec. 2006 December 2006 - 3-1 - 06-1361-319

3.0 CONSULTATION

Enbridge Westspur is committed to working with local communities and landowners through the application and approval process to design a project that will be acceptable to the public. The consultation and communication program reflects Enbridge Westspur’s corporate commitment to stakeholder engagement and the Project will fully adhere to Enbridge’s Corporate Policies on Public Consultation and Indigenous Peoples.

Enbridge Westspur has initiated its public consultation program (Program) to involve landowners, municipalities, and other stakeholders in the planning of the Project. Enbridge Westspur relies primarily on mailing detailed information packages and having personal dialogue with individual landowners. As part of the Program, Enbridge Westspur representatives met with local individuals and groups to discuss the Project, identify concerns and issues, and to develop responses to identified concerns. Project representatives worked to identify ways in which the Project may be able to contribute positively to surrounding communities.

The objectives of the Enbridge Westspur Program are:

• to inform, build, and maintain an in-depth dialogue with affected landowners and interested individuals and groups, community leaders, stakeholders, and the general public regarding the Project; • to identify all potential impacts of the Project on the community and to discuss them in order to enhance positive impacts and mitigate negative impacts; • to identify and include the concerns of affected landowners and other stakeholders in the environmental studies conducted in relation to the Project; and, • to document any issues raised throughout the public involvement program, how they were considered and incorporated into Project planning.

This Program, in support of the Project, supplements the public awareness program already in place relating to Enbridge Westspur’s existing pipeline operations contiguous with the proposed new ROW. This existing program involves dialogue at least once every three years with each of the landowners whose land is crossed by the existing Enbridge Westspur ROW. No major landowner concerns relating to the two existing pipelines have ever been identified in the course of this public awareness program. Nor did landowners or tenants raise any concerns when recently contacted for approval of land and aquatic surveys and environmental assessment work in relation to the Project.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 3-2 - 06-1361-319

3.1 Regulatory and Government Consultation

Enbridge Westspur has supplied SE and MBCDC with a Project information package. Both agencies have replied by letter (letter dated September 14, 2006 from MBCDC and a letter dated October 23, 2006 from SE) to the NEB and Enbridge Westspur indicating potential issues with the Project. These issues have been incorporated into the ESA.

The Project crosses land owned or administered by SAF, the FWDF of SE and the Manitoba Wildlife Heritage Corporation, Sterling Unit. Enbridge Westspur will be providing summary letters of construction activities, soil salvage, and reclamation on these lands to the appropriate agencies in addition to the preparation of the ESA.

As part of the preparation of the ESA, the following agencies were contacted as summarized in Table 3.1.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 3-3 - 06-1361-319

Table 3.1 List of Regulatory and Government Agencies Contacted

Name Agency Contact Date Method Information requested Comments Saskatchewan Requested search for existing Heritage Nathan Friesen, heritage resources; Submitted Plan Heritage Resources Impact Resources Branch, Archaeologist/GIS July 13, 2006 Written report for review; requested permit to Assessment required; permit Department of Specialist conduct Heritage Resources Impact received Culture, Youth and Assessment Recreation C. Gordon Hill, Requested search for existing Manitoba Historic Impact Assessment July 13, 2006 Written report heritage resources; Submitted Plan No further assessment required Resources Branch Archaeologist for review September 20 at 1:27 pm, National Energy Information about proposed projects Person 1 2:21 pm and Phone No information received Board for cumulative effects assessment September 21 at 1:47 pm September 20 National Energy at 2:22 pm and Information about proposed projects Directed to National Energy Board Ken Lien Phone Board September 21 for cumulative effects assessment library and appropriate website at 10:00 am National Energy September 22 Information about proposed projects Person 3 Phone No information received Board at 10:00 am for cumulative effects assessment Nicole Firlotte, Manitoba Biodiversity Known sensitive wildlife in project Conservation Data July 26, 2006 E-mail Information received Information area Centre Manager Saskatchewan Environment- Website: Known sensitive wildlife in project Website Saskatchewan July 26, 2006 Information received gisweb1.serm.gov.sk.ca area Conservation Data Centre

Golder Associates December 2006 - 3-4 - 06-1361-319

Table 3.1 List of Regulatory and Government Agencies Contacted (Continued)

Name Agency Contact Date Method Information requested Comments Saskatchewan Website: Registered Saskatchewan Agriculture Website Agriculture and July 26, 2006 www.agr.gov.sk.ca/apps/ Information received and Food locations Food crown_lands/query/ Allan McCutcheon, Saskatchewan Locations of known fish bearing Area Fisheries July 13, 2006 Phone Information received Environment streams Biologist Manitoba Laureen Janusz, Locations of known fish bearing Conservation Data July 14, 2006 Phone Information received Fisheries Biologist streams Centre Saskatchewan October 26, Jim McConkey Watershed Phone Licensed water users Information received 2006 Authority Manitoba Water October 26, Person 1 Phone Licensed water users Information received Resources 2006 November 9, Environmental Phone Reporting requirements Left message Assessment and 2006 Tracey Braun, Licensing Branch, November 14, Phone Reporting requirements Received phone message Director Manitoba 2006 Conservation Data November 17, Centre Phone Reporting requirements Replied to message 2006 Indicated that Manitoba Conservation Data Centre will Environmental receive the Environmental and Assessment and Social Assessment through normal Bryan Blunt, Licensing Branch, November 17, Canadian Environmental Phone Reporting requirements Environment Officer Manitoba 2006 Assessment Agency and National Conservation Data Energy Board processes; do not Centre require Enbridge to supply a copy of the final Environmental and Social Assessment

Golder Associates December 2006 - 3-5 - 06-1361-319

Table 3.1 List of Regulatory and Government Agencies Contacted (Continued)

Name Agency Contact Date Method Information requested Comments Environmental Assessment Graham Mutch, November 9, Follow up of letter; reporting Left a message with Larry Lechner, Branch, Phone Program Manager 2006 requirements Branch Director Saskatchewan Environment Would like a copy of the final Environmental Environmental and Social Assessment Larry Lechner, November 14, Follow up of letter; reporting Assessment on Disk for review; will Branch, Phone Branch Director 2006 requirements direct comments to National Saskatchewan Energy Board and Enbridge upon Environment review Verified that a water license is not Water Licensing November 7, Information about use of Cromer required for the use of the water Jim McConkey Branch, Manitoba Phone 2006 holding ponds for testing from the Cromer Test Holding Water Stewardship ponds

Golder Associates December 2006 - 3-6 - 06-1361-319

3.2 Aboriginal Issues and Consultation

Three First Nations reserves are located within 40 km of the pipeline ROW: the Whitebear reserve in Saskatchewan, the Sioux Valley Dakota reserve in Manitoba, and the Canupawaka Dakota or Pipestone reserve, also in Manitoba. The ROW will also traverse the Metis Nation – Saskatchewan Eastern Region III and the Manitoba Metis Federation Southwest Region.

Enbridge Westspur initiated its Aboriginal consultation program by seeking the advice of relevant federal and provincial government departments and of regional Aboriginal organizations, such as the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, on what, if any, Aboriginal communities might be affected and therefore consulted.

Early in Enbridge Westspur’s public consultation program, appropriate steps (Appendix III) were taken to provide awareness to affected aboriginal communities of the Project proposal and to give them an effective opportunity to discuss potential concerns, provide meaningful input to Project planning, including opportunities to provide input to the ESA, and to participate in and benefit from Project construction.

3.3 Existing Consultation Program

Enbridge Westspur has a pre-existing relationship with local stakeholders in the Project area dating over 40 years. Its Public Affairs personnel regularly communicate with stakeholders to ensure that they are apprised of new activity in the area and that any issues or concerns can be raised and dealt with in a timely manner.

An information package on the Project was developed and distributed to various key stakeholders such as potentially affected landowners and tenants, representatives of each RM, Village and Town Council, and appropriate Provincial and Federal authorities. A consultation program was also developed to involve several aboriginal communities and associations and carried out by Enbridge Westspur’s Aboriginal Consultation Specialist (Appendix III).

The Project information package was either mailed to key stakeholders or was delivered in person. The following information, as per 2006 NEB Guidelines, was incorporated into the information package:

• the location, starting and ending points, route and main components of the Project;

Golder Associates December 2006 - 3-7 - 06-1361-319

• map to show all the major components of the Project, including the location of proposed facilities such as pump and compressor stations in relation to common landmarks (e.g., towns, major roads, water bodies); • the proposed timing and duration of construction; • the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project and how these effects will be addressed; • how public safety will be addressed; • emergency response information; • how comments or concerns raised by the public will be addressed; • how interested persons can participate further in the consultation process; • company contact information; • the proposed timing of filing the application with the NEB; and, • a copy of the NEB brochure, “A Proposed Pipeline Project: What you Need to Know”.

Information on potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project and associated mitigation will be provided to stakeholders as a follow up activity.

One-on-One meetings have been arranged for all those interested. A short presentation will be developed for future RM Council meetings, as requested. Issues, questions, and any concerns raised are documented in a consultation tracking database and followed up by Enbridge Westspur staff. The goal has been to respond to issues as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Enbridge Westspur’s Aboriginal Consultation Specialist has taken the lead in setting up meetings with aboriginal community leaders, discussing the Project and assessing the need for additional meetings or follow-up discussions.

For the complete report on Enbridge Westspur’s consultation program and results of consultations, please refer to Appendix III.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 4-1 - 06-1361-319

4.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGIES

4.1 Acoustic Environment Methods

4.1.1 Baseline Data Collection Method

The baseline noise survey consisted of four, 24-hour continuous noise monitoring surveys at pre-selected locations in rural Saskatchewan and Manitoba and one set of source measurements at the Alida Terminal. These types of surveys provide information on daily variability in noise levels in rural communities and the character (variability and octave signature) of existing noise sources within the study area. For the ACCE Project, the survey was conducted according to the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) Directive 38: Noise Control Directive User’s Guide (Directive 38) (EUB 1999) Definitions and context regarding noise terminology are provided in Appendix IV.

4.1.2 Instrumentation and Data Parameters

A model 2250 Brüel and Kjaer Type I integrating sound level meter was used to collect all measurement data. A Type 4231 Calibrator was used for calibrating the meter before and after each monitoring sequence. The calibrator has an estimated uncertainty for sound pressure level of ±0.12 dB at a 99% confidence level. Calibration was performed before and after each monitoring period and before and after the source monitoring.

The model 2250 has an accuracy of ±1 A-weighted decibels (dBA) and is capable of collecting logged data over time and detailed 1/3 octave band data of different weightings. For 24-hour continuous monitoring surveys, the meter collects a sound energy trace and audible sound recordings over a monitoring period selected by the user. The logging rate over the monitoring period determines when values are assigned. For the ACCE Project, the logging rate was set for one-minute and the monitoring period was set for 24 hours. Therefore, a value was collected and stored for each minute over a

24-hour period. Integrated average (LAeq), 1/3 octave band values, absolute maximum (LAFmax) and minimum (LAFmin) values over one-minute intervals were collected for each 24-hour session. Sound recordings were saved as “wav” files every ten minutes.

The LAeq is a useful environmental descriptor since it allows for the natural variability in noise and correlates well with annoyance. LAFmax is useful since it describes individual loud events that can cause a significant number of complaints especially when LAFmax is much greater than LAeq when identified with event activities. LAFmin are useful to determine background levels of noise and identify the noise environment outside of peak events.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 4-2 - 06-1361-319

Source measurement surveys collected instantaneous linear (un-weighted) sound over a selected period of time; however, only one value is assigned to the entire monitoring period. For example, if the monitoring period was five minutes, only one value for each

parameter was given for the entire five minutes. The integrated linear average (Leq), the absolute maximum (LFmax) and the minimum (LFmin) sound level for each 1/3 octave band was collected, as well as an overall integrated, A-weighted (LAeq) value for the period.

Data were downloaded and analyzed with the Brüel and Kjaer 7820 Evaluator® software program. This software program graphs the one-minute data and recalculates each parameter to the required time periods for the assessment. Hourly, day, and night values were calculated for the 24-hour measurements based on time periods set out in

Directive 38. For the purposes of this report, the LAeq and LFmax LFmin values are presented.

Temperature, wind speed and wind direction were recorded at the beginning and end of each monitoring sequence. A Kestrel 2500 pocket weather meter was used to measure and document the weather conditions at the monitoring sites. Periods of weather, particularly wind and rain, unduly affect noise measurements and are excluded from the analysis.

Sound sources were identified mainly by audit of the sound recordings. Other indicators used to identify sources of noise were time of day and field observations. Invalid data such as technician activities, wind gusts, and rain were excluded from analysis.

4.1.3 Noise Monitoring Location Selection

Monitoring locations representative of noise sensitive receivers (residences) were selected prior to the commencement of the surveys. Mapping and client data was consulted to identify potential noise sensitive receivers near the terminals and pipeline route.

Farms with family residences were identified along the pipeline route. Four representative locations were selected for baseline monitoring. Table 4.1 gives the universal transverse mercator (UTM) coordinates and Figure 4 shows the locations of the four, 24-hour monitoring sites.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 4-3 - 06-1361-319

Table 4.1 24-hour Measurement Locations

Site Name Description Easting (m) Northing (m) Site 1 Active farm-yard 301,941 5,484,965 Site 2 Abandoned farm-yard 291,964 5,477,184 Site 3 Active farm-yard 315,325 5,495,123 Site 4 Small, rural residence 388,915 5,512,597 Note: UTM coordinates are taken in NAD27. At each location the monitoring setup was placed at least 5 m from any structure.

Site 1 was located in an active farm-yard southeast of the pipeline and south of a gravel road. There were various buildings in the yard including a farm-house, green-house, machine-shed, other small sheds, and grain bins along with various pieces of farm machinery. The yard was cut grass with a small garden and water-fountain; surrounding the yard were deciduous and coniferous trees.

Site 2 was located in an abandoned farm-yard west of Highway #601 and south of the Alida terminal. The farm-yard included abandoned buildings, high grasses, and trees. The surrounding area was active farmland.

Site 3 was located in an active farm-yard north of Highway #13, west of a gravel road and west of Enbridge Westspur’s Redvers valve station. The farm-yard consisted of a farm-house, machine shed, grain bins, cut grass, a few deciduous and coniferous trees, three dogs, and a number of different farm and aviation machinery.

Site 4 was located in a residential acreage west of Highway #256. This location consisted of a small house, garage, cut grass, and a few trees surrounding a small yard.

Golder Associates G:\2006\1361\06-1361-319\GIS\06-1361-319 Fig 4 Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations.mxd - 12/7/2006 @ 4:56:57 PM

Site 4 (Reference) Twp 9

Twp 8

Site 3

Twp 7

Site 1

Twp 6

Site 2

Twp 5 Rge 33 W1M Rge 32 W1M Rge 31 W1M Rge 30 W1M Rge 29 W1M Rge 28 W1M Rge 27 W1M Rge 26 W1M Rge 25 W1M Rge 24 W1M Rge 23 W1M 10 0 10

SCALE 1:400,000 KILOMETRES

PROJECT ENBRIDGE PIPLINES INC. ALIDA TO CROMER PIPELINE

TITLE

BASELINE NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS

Legend PROJECT 06-1361-319 FILE No. Reference: DESIGN SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 GIS JSB 01/11/06 Noise Monitoring Locations UTM NAD 27 Zone 14 ER 07/12/06 NTS Map Sheet 62E CHECK FIGURE: 4 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan REVIEW DJ 07/12/06 December 2006 - 4-5 - 06-1361-319

Source measurements were collected at the Alida terminal. Table 4.2 lists the coordinate locations and a brief description of the locations relative to the terminal. These measurements were collected to aid with future modeling and to determine the signature frequencies from the existing terminal equipment.

Table 4.2 Alida Source Measurement Locations

Site Name Description Easting (m) Northing (m) Source 1 32 m east of structures 292,059 5,478,184 Source 2 48 m east of structures 292,081 5,478,193 Source 3 19 m south of structures 292,024 5,478,166 Source 4 48 m south of structures 292,023 5,478,135 Note: UTM coordinates are taken in NAD27.

4.2 Terrestrial Surveys

4.2.1 Soil Survey

A soil survey was conducted to characterize soils along the proposed ROW on August 21 to 31, 2006. Soil observations were spaced every 200 m (five per km or 300 points in total) along the ROW, at least 30 m from the existing pipeline. Full profile descriptions (below trench depth) were recorded every 1,000 m or when significant changes in soil or vegetation conditions occurred (i.e., transition from cultivated soil to native grassland). The remainder of the observations were to the depth of topsoil only. All horizons of the deep sites were sampled for chemical analysis if required.

Detailed soil profile characteristics were recorded using the criteria outlined in the Canadian Soil Information System manual (Agriculture Canada 1982) and included the following: horizonation, colour of horizons, texture, structure, drainage class, moisture regime, nutrient regime, stoniness class, presence of carbonates and/or salts, parent material type, topographic class, and land use.

Soil chemistry (pH, electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio, cation exchange capacity, available nutrients, and particle size) were analyzed on representative deep profiles to characterize the soil series along the ROW and to identify any potential soil management issues.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 4-6 - 06-1361-319

4.2.2 Vegetation Survey

The initial vegetation and habitat assessment, including a listed species search, was completed by Beryl Wait (Golder, ecologist/vegetation specialist) on July 5 to July 7, 2006. A second field survey was conducted on August 15 to 17, 2006. The survey concentrated on areas dominated by native plant species. All vegetation communities and dominant habitat types were assessed within and adjacent to the proposed corridor, and a habitat map of the project corridor was completed.

4.2.3 Listed Plant Species Survey Methodologies

In conjunction with the initial habitat survey conducted on July 5 to July 7, 2006, a listed plant species survey was also conducted. Prior to conducting the field work, a screening of the study area was performed as part of the rare plant survey procedure published by the Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan (Robson 1998). The screening procedure consisted of two parts, a rare plant database search, and a habitat analysis. The first part involved a search of the databases maintained by SE (2006) and MBCDC (2006). The habitat analysis involved conducting a literature review of status reports by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2006) and other relevant information (e.g., Harms et al. 1992). The habitat analysis was conducted to determine if any rare plants, other than those found during the database search, were likely to occur in the proposed Project area.

The listed plant field survey was conducted to identify potential suitable habitat along the Project corridor. Listed plants were searched for by meandering through suitable habitat, and searching for individual plants and communities. A second, fall survey (August 15 to 17, 2006) was conducted to identify later blooming species more readily identified during their blooming period. The same search methods were used during the fall survey.

4.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Survey

A wildlife and wildlife habitat survey for the Project corridor was conducted by Jeremi Skelton (Golder, wildlife technician) from July 5 to July 7, 2006. The wildlife survey was conducted to evaluate and assess habitat potential (e.g., landscape profile and character, identification of dominant vegetation communities, potential use by wildlife) and to gather a list of wildlife and field sign observations (e.g., nests and burrows) from the pipeline corridor. Ms. Wait also noted observations of wildlife during the July and August listed plant surveys.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 4-7 - 06-1361-319

Based on the federal regulatory requirements, the wildlife survey was intended to “identify wildlife of ecological, economic, or human importance in the study area” (NEB 2006). A review of existing literature and existing wildlife databases was conducted prior to the 2006 wildlife survey to identify these important wildlife species and their habitat requirements. The following federally and provincially listed wildlife species were considered important due to their special status (COSEWIC 2006; MBCDC 2006; SE 2006):

• piping plover (Charadrius melodus); • burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); • loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); • Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii); • ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis); • yellow rail (Coturnicops noveborcensis); • short-eared owl (Asio flammeus); • McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii); • red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus); • northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens); and, • monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus).

The following species were considered of economic or human importance:

• beaver; • white tailed deer; and, • mule deer.

As a number of these species may be found in the general Project area, habitats that may support these species were identified and assessed in the field. Further, particular habitat characteristics (e.g., occurrence of borrows/dens, stick nests, etc.) were used as potential indicators of the presence of certain species.

On parcels of native habitat located within the corridor, the wildlife survey was completed by walking within the proposed ROW and LSA, and wildlife sign, sightings and identified calls were noted. Particular attention was given to the riparian habitat associated with watercourse crossings, as most remaining native habitat in the Project area is associated with these areas, which typically serve as travel corridors and suitable breeding/rearing habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Attention areas also included the designated wildlife lands on the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border and areas of native vegetation, including larger wetlands present at the time of the surveys.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 4-8 - 06-1361-319

Observations regarding sensitive listed species were recorded and noted on the alignment sheets, while those pertaining to breeding bird species and more common wildlife species (e.g., ungulates, furbearers, etc.) have not been included on the alignment sheets but are documented in the report.

As the remainder of the ROW and LSA have been modified (i.e., cultivated) these areas were scanned by the surveyor using binoculars. This was largely due to the fact that landowner permission to survey these privately owned parcels of the LSA had not been granted at the time the survey was completed. As such, a cursory wildlife survey was conducted on these remaining agricultural areas. Within the cultivated areas, wildlife habitat was typically limited to the treed fringes of wetlands, often less than 3 m wide. These wetlands, most of which were temporary and seasonal, were not considered to provide regionally unique wildlife habitat for the wildlife species identified, due to agricultural encroachment and lack of connectivity.

Although it was not considered practical to identify the presence or absence of all species based on two field visits, an assessment of species potential occurrence within the LSA was based on the information collected during the survey coupled with a literature review and the experience and knowledge of Golder wildlife biologists.

Due to the timing of the survey (i.e., towards the latter portion of the nesting/breeding period for most wildlife species), it was not deemed feasible to complete a number of specific wildlife surveys (e.g., amphibian survey, breeding bird survey). As discussed in detail in Section 7.3, a pre-construction wildlife survey will be undertaken to identify timely wildlife issues along the ROW. Any additional information collected during these surveys is not expected to change the impact assessment due to timing of clearing (Section 7) mitigations in the EPP, and the demonstrated resiliency of the habitats along the existing ROW. If conflicts with a listed species are identified at this time, consultation with the appropriate regulatory authority (e.g., Activity Restriction Guidelines; SE 2003; Manitoba Natural Resources 1996) will occur, and a specific mitigation plan will be developed.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 4-9 - 06-1361-319

4.4 Aquatic Surveys

Preliminary watercourse identification was based on 1:50,000 scale National Topographic Series (NTS) maps. Golder completed habitat assessments at each of the watercourse crossings identified on the NTS maps in July 2006 to determine the potential for fish habitat and the sensitivity of existing fish habitat to project activities during construction and operations. The assessments were completed in accordance with the habitat assessment protocol outlined in the Golder Technical Procedure 8.14-1: Pipeline Crossing Habitat Evaluation Parameters, Detailed Stream Assessment (unpublished file information). Stream characteristics, such as depth, width, channel morphology, substrate type, channel form, and stage were recorded on the Pipeline Crossing Habitat Evaluation Parameters Form. Information on bank composition, stability, and slope were also recorded on the form. Photos were taken at each of the proposed crossing locations as well as upstream and downstream of the crossings.

A fish inventory was completed in those watercourses with water present at the time of the assessment. The fish inventory was conducted according to the methods outlined in the Golder Technical Procedure 8.1-3: Fish Inventory Methods (unpublished file information). Fish collection methods included gill netting and backpack electrofishing. All large bodied fish captured were enumerated by species, measured for length and total body weight, and subjected to a limited external health assessment before they were released unharmed into the watercourse from which they were captured. Captured small bodied were enumerated by species and released unharmed into the watercourse from which they were captured. Some small bodied species were retained for taxonomic identification once back at the office.

4.5 Heritage Surveys

The legal land locations traversed by the Project from Alida, Saskatchewan to Cromer, Manitoba were submitted to the Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch and the Manitoba Historic Resources Branch to determine if Heritage Resources Impact Assessments (HRIAs) were required in advance of construction activities.

The Manitoba Historic Resources Branch determined the potential to impact significant heritage resources was low, and did not require HRIA for the Manitoba segment of the proposed pipeline (see requirement letter in Appendix V). The Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch also determined that the proposed pipeline project was not in conflict with previously recorded heritage resources, and that vast portions of the Project area were already disturbed by intense agricultural land use (see requirement letter in Appendix V). The potential to impact significant heritage resources was low.

Golder Associates December 2006 - 4-10 - 06-1361-319

However, uncultivated portions of land adjacent to Gainsborough Creek located in SW 19-7-30-W1M were determined to have heritage potential by the Heritage Branch. As such, a preconstruction HRIA was required for uncultivated areas within the proposed pipeline ROW adjacent to Gainsborough Creek.

The HRIA was conducted on July 26, 2006 under Archaeological Investigation Permit No. 06-115 using standard archaeological procedures. A pedestrian reconnaissance was first conducted within undisturbed areas of the proposed 20 m wide ROW to determine the presence of surface features or significant artifact scatters. This was followed by a subsurface testing program to determine the presence of intact archaeological resources. A total of 14 shovel probes were judgmentally placed within the proposed ROW. Probes measured approximately 40 cm x 40 cm and were excavated to a maximum depth of 50 cm. Sediments from these probes were manually inspected for cultural materials.

As required under The Heritage Property Act, a stand alone Final Report must be completed for submission to the appropriate regulatory agencies upon completion of the HRIA. This report must document methods, detail the results of the field reconnaissance, and provide recommendations for appropriate heritage responses to these findings. This report is included in Appendix V.

Golder Associates