Portage Project Environment Act Proposal

Roquette Canada Ltd.

Project Number: 60529222

March 2017

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd.

Prepared by: AECOM Canada Ltd. 99 Commerce Drive Winnipeg MB R3P 0Y7 Canada

T: 204.477.5381 F: 204.284.2040 aecom.com

© 2016 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

List of Acronyms

AECOM AECOM Canada Ltd. AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic BBA Breeding Bird Atlas BSC Bird Studies Canada CDC Conservation Data Centre City City of EAP Environment Act Proposal EC Environmental Component Facility Pea Processing Facility fbgs feet below the ground surface HCl hydrochloric acid HRB Historic Resources Branch HRIA Heritage Resources Impact Assessment IBC intermediate bulk container LT left turn MAAQC Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria MAL Maximum Acceptable Level masl meters above sea level mbgs meters below the ground surface MDL Maximum Desirable Level MHA Manitoba Herpetological Atlas MP Industrial Poplar Bluff Zone MTL Maximum Tolerable Level NaOH sodium hydroxide PHV peak hourly volume RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police RM Rural Municipality Roquette Roquette Canada Ltd. RT right turn SARA Species at Risk Act SC Social Component TH through TIS Traffic Impact Study vph vehicles per hour WMA Wildlife Management Area WPCF Wastewater Pollution Control Facility WTP Water Treatment Plant

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Executive Summary

Roquette Canada Ltd.(“Roquette”) proposes to construct and operate a new Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”) in the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie, approximately 4 km west of the City of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. The site of the Facility is bordered by Simplot to the north and northwest, Enns Brothers to the northwest, and JL Agronomics to the west, and Provincial Road 41W (also known as Simplot Road) to the west and southwest.

The purpose of the Pea Processing Facility is to process yellow into three key products: fibers, protein, and . Each of these products has several additional applications in industries such as pharma, nutrition, and . The Facility will use yellow peas, and produce powdered starch, powdered protein, and powdered fibers (pea fiber) as the main products, and broken peas and hulls pellets as the co-products. Trucks will be used to bring in raw material to be processed, and to transport products to market. Construction of the proposed Facility is to begin in August 2017 with a targeted operational date of July 2019.

This Environment Act Proposal (EAP) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”), on behalf of Roquette, in accordance with the information described in Manitoba Sustainable Development’s Information Bulletin (2015), “Environment Act Proposal Report Guidelines.” It has been prepared and is submitted for consideration of Roquette’s application for licence under The Environment Act, CCSM c E125. The proposed Pea Processing Facility will be considered a Class 2 Development as per the Classes of Development Regulation 164/88 of The Environment Act, CCSM c E125). A copy of the Proposal Form is attached in Appendix A.

The environmental effects of the proposed Facility have been assessed as follows:

Topography

The effects on topography during the construction phase of the Facility are expected to be Negligible as the Project Site will be prepared by the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie prior to construction. Site preparation work completed by the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie will include clearing, grading, and levelling. Any additional land preparation work required during construction will include construction of the different features on the site including the Production Area, Utilities Area, Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area, and Administrative Offices Area. Therefore, the residual impact on topography caused by the proposed Project is assessed to be Negligible.

Soil

With respect to soil compaction, mixing, and erosion during construction, the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this assessed are expected to mitigate any potential soil compaction/mixing and erosion effects. Therefore, it is anticipated that the residual effect on soil is expected to be Negligible.

Groundwater

Roquette does not intend to utilize groundwater during construction or during operation of this Facility. All water required on-site will be come from the City of Portage la Prairie water supply system. Therefore, the project is not expected to impact groundwater.

Air Quality

With the implementation of the mitigation measures noted in the assessment while carrying out construction activities, the effect of dust during construction and operation is expected to be Negligible to Minor.

In regards to exhaust emissions, equipment to be used during construction includes: forklifts, dozers, compactors, loaders. During operation, it is expected that there will be approximately 75 trucks travelling to and from the Facility. It is also anticipated that on average, there will be 120 employee vehicles also

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal travelling to the Facility on a daily basis. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this assessment such as encouraging carpooling, limiting vehicle idling, and keeping vehicles well- maintained, the effects of exhaust emissions during construction and operation are expected to be Negligible.

An air dispersion model was conducted to determine the proposed impacts of the Facility during operation. Overall, there are not expected to be any significant impacts to ambient air quality from the proposed Facility given the location of the proposed Facility and the absence of sensitive receptors. Modelling results of the proposed project predict that PM2.5, PM10 and TSP maximum concentrations may exceed the MAAQC in a small area immediately east of the Facility; these concentrations drop below the Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria (MAAQC) within 20 m of the Facility and remain well under at all sensitive receptors. The effects on ambient air quality due to the operation of the proposed Facility are expected to be Minor when the proximity of the nearby sensitive receptors is considered.

Noise

With respect to noise during construction and operation (vehicle movement on the Project Site), the noise levels at the Project Site are not expected to be high enough to cause significant disturbance in the Project Area. With the implementation of the measures such as providing hearing protection to employees and visitors as required and properly maintaining vehicles and equipment are expected to appropriately mitigate potential adverse effects.

A Noise Impact Study was completed as part of this assessment. The purpose of this study was to estimate the noise impact of the proposed Facility based on project design and provide noise mitigation recommendations where necessary. The impact of noise at two of the nearest noise sensitive locations is expected to be low. A Noise Management Plan will be developed to outline procedural commitments to minimizing noisy events, commitments on noise levels related to maintenance, complaint procedures, and noise monitoring procedures in response to specific complaints. Climate

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed Project include vehicle exhausts and exhausts from diesel construction equipment (i.e., general vehicle movement on-site, using equipment for grading, and placing materials). With the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this assessment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (minimizing idling, keeping vehicles well-maintained, encouraging carpooling, and periodic inspections), the residual effects on climate are expected to be Negligible.

Surface Water Quality

Surface drainage from the Project Site flows northward through various drains and eventually drains into Lake Manitoba, located approximately 25 km north of the Project Site. There will be no direct wastewater discharge from the proposed Facility into any nearby waterbodies. Wastewater from the production processes will be discharged to the City of Portage la Prairie’s Water Pollution Control Facility for further processing.

Flora Species

As indicated above, the site preparation work completed by the RM of Portage la Prairie will include clearing, grading, and levelling as needed. Any additional land preparation work required during construction will include site drainage, along with the construction of the different features on the site including the Production Area, Utilities Area, Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area, and Administrative Offices Area. Once construction is complete, the site will be re-vegetated and landscaped.

Fauna Species

The Project Site was previously used as agricultural land and is not expected to contain critical breeding habitat. The terrestrial survey planned for spring 2017 will confirm presence or absence of bird nests at the Project Site and appropriate mitigation determined at that time.

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

With respect to noise, it is anticipated that local fauna are likely already accustomed to some level of noise based on the existing activity in the area. The mitigation measures proposed in this assessment are expected to mitigate any potential effects on wildlife due to noise. Given that the project entails food processing, bird deterrents will be installed at the Project Site at areas that may be seen to potentially attract birds to minimize the risk of product contamination due to fecal matter.

Protected Species

There is the potential that the Chimney Swift may be found in the Portage la Prairie area, while the Silver Chub, Red-headed Woodpecker and Prairie Skink may be found within the Project Region. As the project is not expected to impact surface water, the project is not expected to impact Silver Chub.

The Project Site is not expected to provide suitable breeding habitat for the Chimney Swift and Red- headed Woodpecker and it is not anticipated to provide the unique critical habitat of the Prairie Skink. For these reasons, the potential impact of the proposed Project on protected fauna species is expected to be Negligible.

Heritage Resources

A screening request to Historic Resources Branch (HRB) was sent on December 7, 2016 for the proposed Facility to determine if there are any potential heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed development and if a Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) is required. The Archaeological Unit of the HRB indicated that the Branch has some concerns with the Project and the potential to impact significant heritage resources has been deemed high in this area. Therefore, the Branch recommended that a HRIA be completed.

AECOM will complete a HRIA under snow-free and frost-free conditions this spring (2017). Any heritage resource sites identified as a result of the HRIA will be documented, and the extent of each site will delineated. Sufficient information will be gathered from each site to form recommendations either for additional work, or for clearance for the proposed Project under The Heritage Resources Act, CCSM c H39.1. The HRIA will be filed as a supplemental filing upon completion.

Protected Areas

Based on the distance from the Project site, construction and operation of the proposed Facility is not anticipated to affect nearby protected areas.

Traffic

The increase in traffic at Intersections 1 and 2 will be significant. However, these intersections have the capacity to accommodate this increase and not result in significant queues and delays. Similarly, while the increase in traffic at Simplot Road and Road 65N is also expected to be major, both roads have the level of service to accommodate this increase. Overall, the generated traffic from the proposed Facility will have a minimal impact on the LOS of Simplot Road and Road 65N. However, given that traffic was noted to be of concern to local employees at adjacent businesses and local residents in the area, Roquette will be meeting with the landowners in the area in April 2017 to discuss their concerns.

Aesthetics

During construction, good housekeeping practices will be implemented at the Project Site including inspecting the Project Site on a regular basis for loose waste and debris and storing waste and debris in proper bins prior to removal from the site. Therefore, the overall residual impact on aesthetics caused by the proposed Project is assessed to be Negligible.

Community Engagement

The Project was publicly announced at the Manitoba Legislature on January 18, 2017. Discussions with various communities and stakeholders have been ongoing since late 2016. Roquette also held a public open house on February 1, 2017 in the City of Portage la Prairie. Since the open house, Roquette has

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal been following up with local businesses, interested parties, local landowners, and others to discuss their interest in and any concerns with the project. In particular, Roquette will be hosting a follow-up meeting with local landowners to discuss their concerns about traffic in April 2017, and a follow-up meeting for interested suppliers in June 2017. Roquette is also in the process of scheduling a meeting with Dakota Tipi First Nation and Long Plain First Nation in March/April 2017.

Conclusion Summary

Considering the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures identified in this report, along with Roquette’s best management practices, and taking into consideration the design features of the proposed Facility, the adverse effects of the proposed Project are expected to be Negligible to Minor in magnitude, with positive economic benefits to the province of Manitoba.

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Overview...... 1 1.2 Proponent Contact Information ...... 1 1.3 Company Profile ...... 1 1.4 Land Ownership and Property Rights ...... 2 1.5 Regulatory Framework ...... 2 1.6 Project Funding...... 2 2. Project Description ...... 3 2.1 Project Components ...... 3 2.1.1 Production Area ...... 3 2.1.1.1 Raw Material Receiving, Storing, and Pre-Processing ...... 3 2.1.1.2 Starch, Fiber, and Protein Production Lines ...... 4 2.1.2 Utilities Area ...... 4 2.1.2.1 Electrical Yard ...... 4 2.1.2.2 Natural Gas Yard ...... 5 2.1.2.3 Steam Boiler ...... 5 2.1.2.4 Compressed Air Generator ...... 5 2.1.2.5 Freshwater Storage and Distribution ...... 5 2.1.2.6 Chemical Storage and Distribution ...... 5 2.1.2.7 Wastewater Buffer Tank and Emergency Lagoon ...... 6 2.1.2.8 Snow Management Area ...... 6 2.1.3 Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area ...... 6 2.1.4 Administrative Offices Area ...... 6 2.2 Production Capacity ...... 7 2.3 Production Process ...... 7 2.3.1 Raw Material Sorting ...... 9 2.3.1.1 Impurities ...... 9 2.3.1.2 Broken Peas ...... 9 2.3.1.3 Pea Hulls ...... 9 2.3.1.4 ‘Good Peas’ ...... 9 2.3.2 Pea Pre-Processing ...... 9 2.3.3 Starch Processing ...... 9 2.3.4 Protein Processing ...... 10 2.3.5 Fiber Processing ...... 10 2.4 Process Waste ...... 10 2.4.1 Wastewater ...... 10 2.4.2 Solid Waste ...... 11 2.5 Site Drainage ...... 11 2.6 Traffic ...... 12 2.7 Employees ...... 12 2.8 Construction Equipment Use ...... 12 2.9 Project Schedule ...... 13 3. Scope of the Assessment ...... 14 3.1 Temporal Boundaries ...... 14 3.2 Spatial Boundaries ...... 14 4. Existing Environment ...... 15

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

4.1 Biophysical Setting ...... 15 4.1.1 Topography ...... 15 4.1.2 Soil ...... 15 4.1.3 Geology ...... 16 4.1.4 Groundwater ...... 16 4.1.4.1 Extent of Groundwater Use ...... 16 4.1.5 Climate ...... 17 4.1.6 Ambient Air Quality ...... 18 4.1.7 Noise ...... 19 4.2 Aquatic Environment ...... 19 4.2.1 Hydrology ...... 19 4.2.2 Aquatic Resources ...... 20 4.3 Terrestrial Environment ...... 20 4.3.1 Flora ...... 20 4.3.2 Fauna ...... 21 4.4 Protected Species ...... 21 4.4.1 Migratory Birds...... 26 4.4.2 Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 26 4.5 Heritage Resources ...... 26 4.5.1 Heritage Resources Overview ...... 27 4.6 Socio-Economic Environment ...... 29 4.6.1 Land Use ...... 29 4.6.2 Municipal Services ...... 29 4.6.3 Population Census and Economy ...... 30 4.6.4 Indigenous Communities ...... 30 4.6.5 Protected Areas ...... 30 4.6.6 Transportation ...... 31 5. Community Engagement ...... 32 5.1 Stakeholder Meetings ...... 33 5.1.1 Meetings with Local Communities ...... 33 5.2 Summary of Community Open House ...... 33 5.2.1 Community Open House Notification ...... 33 5.2.1.1 Letter of Invitation ...... 33 5.2.1.2 Newspaper Advertising ...... 34 5.2.1.3 Stride Place Display Screen Advertising ...... 34 5.2.1.4 Other ...... 34 5.3 Community Open House Feedback Forms ...... 34 5.3.1 Attendee Location ...... 34 5.3.2 Comments on How People Heard About the Event ...... 35 5.3.3 Comments on Project Interest ...... 35 5.3.4 Comments on Quality of Information Provided ...... 36 5.3.5 Comments on Concerns about the Project ...... 37 5.3.6 Additional Comments or Feedback ...... 38 5.4 Summary of Discussions at Community Open House ...... 40 5.5 Portage Pea Project in the Media ...... 41 5.6 Engagement Follow-up ...... 41 6. Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Measures ...... 42 6.1 Environmental and Social Components ...... 42

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

6.2 Effects Assessment Methodology ...... 42 6.3 Topography ...... 45 6.3.1 Overall Impact to Topography ...... 45 6.4 Soil ...... 45 6.4.1 Soil Compaction and Mixing of Soil Horizons ...... 45 6.4.2 Soil Erosion ...... 46 6.4.3 Overall Impact to Soil ...... 46 6.5 Groundwater ...... 46 6.6 Air Quality ...... 46 6.6.1 Dust ...... 46 6.6.2 Exhaust Emissions ...... 47 6.6.3 Air Emissions ...... 48 6.6.4 Overall Impact on Air Quality ...... 50 6.7 Noise ...... 50 6.7.1 Overall Impact on Noise ...... 52 6.8 Climate ...... 52 6.8.1 Overall Impact on Climate ...... 52 6.9 Surface Water Quality ...... 52 6.9.1 Overall Impact on Surface Water Quality ...... 53 6.10 Flora Species ...... 53 6.10.1 Clearing ...... 54 6.10.2 Dust Deposition ...... 54 6.10.3 Overall Impact on Flora Species ...... 54 6.11 Fauna Species ...... 54 6.11.1 Loss of Habitat ...... 54 6.11.2 Noise ...... 55 6.11.3 Overall Impact on Fauna ...... 55 6.12 Protected Species ...... 55 6.12.1 Overall Impact on Protected Species ...... 56 6.13 Heritage Resources ...... 56 6.13.1 Overall Impact on Heritage Resources ...... 57 6.14 Protected Areas ...... 57 6.15 Traffic ...... 57 6.15.1 Overall Impact on Transportation ...... 59 6.16 Aesthetics ...... 59 6.16.1 Overall Impact on Aesthetics ...... 59 6.17 Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 59 6.17.1 Worker Health and Safety ...... 59 6.17.2 Spills ...... 59 6.17.3 Fire and Explosions ...... 60 6.17.4 Transportation Accidents ...... 61 6.18 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures ...... 61 7. Conclusions ...... 65 8. References ...... 68

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Figures

Figure 01 – Project Location Figure 02 – Site Plan Location Figure 03 – Spatial Boundaries of the Environmental Assessment Figure 04 – Proposed Site Layout Figure 05 – Physiographic Setting Figure 06 – Groundwater Wells within the Project Area Figure 07 – Prairie Skink Range and Occurance Figure 08 – Archaeology Sites within the Project Region Figure 09 – Land Use Zoning Figure 10 – Traffic Data at UMTIG Station 48 Figure 11 – 2017 Traffic Count at Intersections 1 & 2 Figure 12 – Air Quality Discrete Receptor Locations Figure 13 – Noise Impact Study Sensitive Receptor Locations

Tables

Table 1. Roquette World Totals ...... 2 Table 2. Wastewater Effluent Characterization ...... 11 Table 3. Estimated Daily Traffic Volumes [1] ...... 12 Table 4. Equipment Use during Construction of the Proposed Pea Processing Project ...... 13 Table 5. Proposed Scheduling ...... 13 Table 6. Climate Data for the Project Area ...... 17 Table 7. Additional Weather Parameters ...... 17 Table 8. Ambient Background Air Quality ...... 18 Table 9. Minimum MOECC Sound Level Limits for Class 3 (Rural) Areas ...... 19 Table 10. Federally and Provincially Listed Species that May Occur in the Project Region ...... 22 Table 11. Summary of Previously Recorded Heritage Site within the Project Region ...... 28 Table 12. Traffic Data along the TransCanada Highway (2012 - 2015) ...... 31 Table 13. 2017 Peak Traffic Count Turning onto Simplot Road (Vehicle/Hour) ...... 31 Table 14. Summary of Attendee Location ...... 35 Table 15. Summary of How People Heard About the Event ...... 35 Table 16. Summary of Project Interest ...... 35 Table 17. Summary of Quality Information ...... 36 Table 18. Summary of Additional Comments or Feedback ...... 38 Table 19. Additional Project Inquiries ...... 39 Table 20. Topics of Discussion at the Open House...... 40 Table 21. Identification of Potential Environmental/Social Component Interaction with the Project ...... 43 Table 22. Factors and Definitions Considered in Assessing Environmental Effects ...... 44 Table 23. Maximum Predicted Concentrations on Receptor Grid ...... 49 Table 24. Acoustic Assessment Summary Table - R01 and R05 ...... 51 Table 25. Wastewater Effluent Characterization ...... 53 Table 26. Difference in Peak Traffic Count Turning onto Simplot Road (Vehicle/Hour) ...... 58 Table 27. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures...... 62 Table 28. Summary of Potential Accidents and Malfunctions and Mitigation Measures...... 64

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Appendices

Appendix A. Environment Act Proposal Form Appendix B. Letter of Intention to Purchase and Certificates of Titles Appendix C. Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report Appendix D. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study Appendix E. Historic Resources Branch Response Letter Appendix F. Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study Appendix G. Open House Letters Appendix H. Open House Story Boards and Fact Sheets Appendix I. Open House Ads, Feedback Forms, & Media Summary Table

AECOM

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Overview

Roquette Canada Ltd. (“Roquette”) proposes to construct and operate a new Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”) in the Rural Municipality (RM) of Portage la Prairie, approximately 4 km west of the City of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. The site of the Facility is bordered by Simplot to the north and northwest, Enns Brothers to the northwest, and JL Agronomics to the west, and Provincial Road 41W (also known as Simplot Road) to the west and southwest. The Assiniboine River is located approximately 3.5 km to the southeast, and the Portage Diversion is located approximately 0.5 km east of the Facility. The location of the proposed Facility is shown in Figure 01 and Figure 02.

The purpose of a Pea Processing Facility is to process yellow peas into three key products: fibers, protein and starch. Each of these products has several additional applications in different industries, such as pharma, nutrition, food, and other industries. The Facility will use yellow peas, and produce powdered starch, powdered protein, and powdered fibers (pea fiber) as the main products, and broken peas and hulls pellets as the co-products. Trucks will be used for bringing in raw material to be processed as well as transporting products to market.

The Facility will include the following four main areas: Production, Utilities, Packaging and Outbound Trucking, and Administrative Offices. Production inputs at the Facility will include: raw materials to be processed, water, chemicals, and energy. Production outputs will include: processed materials (, proteins, and fibers), wastewater, solid wastes, and air emissions from various production processes.

Figure 01 displays the general location of the proposed project in Manitoba.

This Environment Act Proposal (EAP) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”), on behalf of Roquette, in accordance with the information described in Manitoba Sustainable Development’s Information Bulletin (2015), “Environment Act Proposal Report Guidelines.” It has been prepared and is submitted for consideration of Roquette’s application for a licence under The Environment Act, CCSM c E125. A copy of the Proposal Form is attached in Appendix A.

1.2 Proponent Contact Information

Name of Project Portage Pea Project Name of Proponent Roquette Canada Ltd. Address of Proponent 2500 – 360 Main Street, Winnipeg, MB R3C 4H6 Principal Contact Person(s) for this EAP Somia Sadiq Impact Assessment & Permitting Lead, MB/SK Environment, Western Canada AECOM D +1-204-928-8494 C +1-204-899-5767 [email protected]

1.3 Company Profile

Roquette is a family owned enterprise with more than 80 years of experience globally. Roquette is a leader in specialty food ingredients and pharmaceutical excipients. The products and solutions developed by Roquette deliver proven technological, nutritional and health benefits precisely tailored to the pharma, nutrition, food, and selected industry markets. Roquette’s products come from plant-based raw materials such as corn, , potatoes and peas. Over its 80 years, Roquette’s growth has been based on

AECOM 1/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal innovation, a passion for the job, and a commitment to achieve. Roquette operates in over 100 countries, has a turnover of around 3.3 billion euros and currently employs over 8,000 people worldwide.

Table 1. Roquette World Totals

Locations Americas Asia Employees 500 5,000 1,400 1,100 Industrial Sites 2 10 3 5

1.4 Land Ownership and Property Rights

The proposed project will be constructed on property which is currently owned by the RM of Portage la Prairie. The site will be purchased by Roquette in July 2017. A letter outlining Roquette’s intention to purchase this property and a copy of the certificates of title currently owned by the RM is included Appendix B.

Figure 01 shows the location of the site in relation to the RM of Portage la Prairie.

1.5 Regulatory Framework

The proposed Pea Processing Facility will be considered a Class 2 Development as per the Classes of Development Regulation 164/88 of The Environment Act, CCSM c E125.

The activities proposed as a part of this project are not listed on the Regulations Designating Physical Activities under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, c 52, and as such, no federal assessment requirements are anticipated.

1.6 Project Funding

The project will be solely funded by Roquette.

AECOM 2/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

2. Project Description

The following boundaries are used in describing the Project Components and Activities:

. Project Site – is comprised of Pea Processing Facility and the access road. . Project Area – is comprised of an area 2 km beyond the Project Site, which is intended to take into account the effects of the Project (such as noise, emissions and traffic). . Project Region – is comprised of an area up to 10 km beyond the Project Site, which is intended to take into account the maximum spatial extent of any potential impacts of the Project.

Figure 03 shows the Project Site, Project Area, and Project Region.

2.1 Project Components

All components of the project will be located at the Project Site. The proposed Facility will include the following key components:

1. Production Area;

2. Utilities Area;

3. Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area; and

4. Administrative Offices Area.

The sections below outline the sub-components within each of the above-listed components and their purpose in the overall process.

Figure 04 shows the general site layout and the different areas within the Project Site. The Project Site will be fenced and gated to prevent any unauthorized access.

2.1.1 Production Area

The Production Area will include the following sub-components:

. Raw material receiving, storing, and pre-processing; . Fiber production line; . Protein production line; and . Starch production line.

Figure 04 shows the general location of the Production Area within the Project Site.

2.1.1.1 Raw Material Receiving, Storing, and Pre-Processing

Raw material (i.e., yellow peas) will be received at the Project Site via trucks.

As the trucks enter the Facility, they will enter a Weighing and Quality Control Bay. Here, the trucks will be weighed, and the raw material inspected for quality. Once the raw material passes the quality-control check, trucks will then move into a Wash Bay for cleaning. The main purpose of the Wash Bay will be to remove snow, salts, and miscellaneous road debris in winter months. This is important to prevent any contamination of the peas as they enter the production process. This Wash Bay will be connected to the fresh water distribution system in the Utilities Area (discussed in Section 2.1.2). Wastewater from the Wash Bay will be pumped into the Wastewater Buffer Tank (discussed in Section 2.1.2.7). Any snow collected at the Wash Bay will be transferred to the Snow Management Area (discussed in Section 2.1.2.8).

AECOM 3/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Once the trucks have been inspected, weighed, and cleaned, they will be unloaded. The unloading system will be equipped with a de-dusting system to capture any dust that is generated from the material itself or any impurities in the batch when the material is unloaded. The de-dusting system will be equipped with a filter, which will remove any dust particles from the air and capture them in a dust bag. The resulting ‘clean air’ will then be released into the atmosphere. The dust bag will be replaced when it is full (expected every six to eighteen months depending on use). The filters will be replaced as needed. Used filters and dust bags that are full will be disposed of at the Poplar Point Landfill Facility.

Once the peas have been unloaded, they will be sorted as described in Section 2.3.1 below.

2.1.1.2 Starch, Fiber, and Protein Production Lines

The Production Area will include three main production lines; one for starch, one for protein, and one for fiber.

Each production line will include a series of equipment such as weigh hoppers, feeder lines, piping systems, conveyors, decanters, evaporators, separators, dryers, filtrations systems, cyclones, boilers, cooling systems, compressors, and pumps.

Each stage in the production process that requires the use of water will be equipped with a fresh water supply which will be piped from the Utilities Area (described in Section 2.1.2). Every stage in the process requiring water will also have a wastewater collection system, which will allow wastewater to be collected and pumped to the Wastewater Buffer Tank (described in Section 2.1.2.7).

The Production Area will also consist of storage silos for raw materials and finished products (broken peas, hulls, and pea fiber only).

Figure 04 shows the general location of the Storage Area within the Project Site.

2.1.2 Utilities Area

The Utilities Area will consist of the ancillary support infrastructure required for the main production process, i.e., energy, water, and chemical supplies needed for the process. The utilities will include the following sub-components:

. An electrical yard;

. A natural gas yard;

. A steam boiler;

. A compressed air generator;

. A potable water storage and distribution system;

. A chemical storage and distribution system;

. A wastewater buffer tank; and

. A snow management area.

Figure 04 shows the general location of the Utilities Area within the Project Site. The Utilities Area will account for roughly a quarter of the total surface footprint of the operations.

2.1.2.1 Electrical Yard

The Electrical Yard will be approximately 2,500 m2 in size.

The Electrical Yard will include a transformer station and will be connected to main electrical distribution system powered by Manitoba Hydro. A safety generator will be installed in the electrical yard to be used in

AECOM 4/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal the case of a power outage. This back-up generator will have sufficient capacity to power the mandatory processes, if needed. The Electrical Yard will have the appropriate safety signage.

Figure 04 shows the general location of the Electrical Yard within the Utilities Area.

2.1.2.2 Natural Gas Yard

The Natural Gas Yard will be roughly 250 m2 in size.

Natural gas will be provided to the Project Site via underground distribution and will be equipped with a commercial flow meter to control volumes. The distribution of natural gas within the Project Site will be via piping racks or underground distribution. Each production line within the Production Area will be equipped with a flow meter to regulate the use of natural gas.

Figure 04 shows the general location of the Natural Gas Yard within the Utilities Area.

2.1.2.3 Steam Boiler

A steam boiler, fed by natural gas, will be used to provide steam to the processes, as required. The distribution of steam within the production lines will be via piping racks. Each production line that requires steam will be equipped with a flow meter to regulate the use of steam.

2.1.2.4 Compressed Air Generator

Compressors will be used to transfer compressed air into each of the production lines, as required. The compressor will be connected to a filtration unit. Each production line which requires compressed air will be equipped with a flow meter to regulate the use of compressed air.

Figure 04 shows the general location of compressed air generator within the Utilities Area.

2.1.2.5 Freshwater Storage and Distribution

Freshwater will be supplied by the City and will be treated on-site to the quality required for processing. Freshwater will be stored in the Utilities Area in two 1,000 m3 tanks. Pending further analysis, the freshwater received may need to be de-carbonated. The tanks will connect to the Facility via piping racks. The piping will be insulated and heat-traced. Each production line will be equipped with a flow meter to regulate the consumption of freshwater.

Figure 04 shows the general location of the Freshwater Storage and Distribution within the Utilities Area.

2.1.2.6 Chemical Storage and Distribution

All chemicals will be stored within a Chemical Storage Building located in the Utilities Area.

The two main chemical products stored at the Facility will be sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Both chemicals will arrive at a lower concentration; approximately 50% and 30% respectively. Other chemicals used on site will include standard cleaning reagents.

Chemicals will be delivered to the Facility via bulk chemical trucks and intermediate bulk container (IBC) tanks. The unloading area will be equipped with appropriate spill containment. Chemicals will be unloaded into storage tanks. These tanks will be contained within a concrete retention area designed to capture any spills. The retention structure surrounding any chemical storage will be equipped with a sump pump designed to capture any material that spills over and any water used to wash any spills.

Distribution pipes for these chemicals will be contained in a retention system designed to contain any spills. All chemical distribution pipes will be inspected on a regular basis.

AECOM 5/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

The chemicals arriving at the Facility that will not require bulk storage will be contained within IBC tanks. All the unloading stations for IBC tanks will be located at the closest distance to the process users as possible and will be located within a separate room.

Figure 04 shows the general location of the Chemical Storage and Distribution within the Utilities Area.

2.1.2.7 Wastewater Buffer Tank and Emergency Lagoon

A Wastewater Buffer Tank will be located within the Project Site (see Figure 04) and will have a capacity of 2,500 m3. The tank will allow the proponent to store wastewater temporarily prior to discharging it to the City of Portage la Prairie’s Wastewater Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).

A wastewater Emergency Lagoon will also be constructed adjacent to the Wastewater Buffer Tank as an emergency storage only. In the event that there is a malfunction within the Facility, wastewater will be directed to the Emergency Lagoon. The Emergency Lagoon will have a maximum capacity of 10,000 m3 and will be lined to minimize any risks associated with leaks to the natural environment. The lagoon will be connected to the Wastewater Buffer Tank and will trickle-discharge into this tank prior to discharge into the City’s WPCF. This will prevent any overloads of wastewater to the City’s WPCF.

2.1.2.8 Snow Management Area

The Snow Management area will be a designated area specifically to allow for snow-management on-site during the winter months. This includes snow from the overall Project Site (parking areas, walkways, and other paved area), snow that is removed from trucks that deliver raw material to the site, and trucks that leave the site with the finished products.

The Snow Management Area will allow for collection of surface runoff and rainwater management. Water quality will be verified at this location. If the quality is deemed appropriate, the water will be directed into a rainwater collection ditch in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park. If the water quality is deemed to be not adequate, the water will be temporarily contained until the quality is acceptable for discharge to the rainwater collection ditch in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park.

Figure 04 shows the location of the Snow Management Area within the Project Site.

2.1.3 Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area

The Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area will be designated for final packaging of finished starch and protein products and a trucking area to load these finished products.

The Packaging Area will store pallets, bags, plastic, and other miscellaneous packaging materials.

Each of the final products will have their own designated packaging lines. Each packaging line will include a feeding hopper, a weigh hopper, a safety rotary sieve, and a fully automated big bag station. Each packaging line will also have its own dedicated de-dusting system which will recycle powder particles to the feeding hopper of the big bag station to allow for maximum recovery of the final product. Once the particles that are recoverable have been captured in the filter of this de-dusting system, the remainder of the ‘clean air’ will be vented to the atmosphere. Each of the two packaging lines will connect to the Outbound Trucking Area. Once the final products are packaged and ready for transfer, they will be forklifted into the trucks, ready to be trucked off-site.

Figure 04 shows the general location of the Packaging and Outbound Trucking area within the Project Site.

2.1.4 Administrative Offices Area

The Administrative Offices Area will include: . The main entrance which will be gated and access will be controlled;

AECOM 6/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

. Parking for employees and visitors;

. Offices for employees working at the Facility;

. A cafeteria for employees and visitors; and

. A central control room, which will include a laboratory to implement quality control measures and manage the overall production processes.

Figure 04 shows the location of the Administrative Offices Area within the Project Site.

2.2 Production Capacity

The Facility will process 125,000 tons of raw material per year.

2.3 Production Process

This section outlines the steps involved in the processing of yellow peas. Insert 01 illustrates this production process. As shown in the figure, the Facility will be producing three main products and three co-products. Main products will be:

. Powdered Starch;

. Powdered Protein; and

. Pea Fiber

Co-products produced at the Facility will be:

. Broken Peas; and

. Hull Pellets.

AECOM 7/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal Broken Peas Grinding Silos Ground Peas

Raw Hulls Pellets Material Pre-Cleaning Storage Sorting Pelleting Bulk Packaging Pellets Unloading

Remaining Slurry Peas Filtration Weigh Hopper Dilution Separator

Starch Slurry Protein Slurry Fiber Slurry

Refinery Separator Concentration

Refined Non-soluble Soluble Pulp Starch Protein Protein

Paste Dryer Dryer Evaporating Mixer

Dried Protein LEGEND

Powdered Starch Grinding Concentration Dryer Finished Product

Wet Processing

Dry Processing Powdered Protein Pea Feed

Insert 01: Production Process for Pea Processing Page 8/70 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

2.3.1 Raw Material Sorting

As noted above in Section 2.1.1.1, the raw material received at the Facility will first be weighed, then checked for quality, and then unloaded into in-floor bins. Once the raw material is unloaded from the trucks into the in-floor storage bins, it will be transferred to the raw material sorting system via a set of conveyors and elevators. The pre-processing system will allow for sorting of the raw material into impurities, broken peas, pea hulls, or ‘good peas’.

2.3.1.1 Impurities

Impurities refer to larger debris and miscellaneous items (objects that may have been accidentally picked up when harvesting peas). The impurities collected will be disposed of in a large bag located outside the pre-processing building, and transferred to the Poplar Point Landfill Facility.

2.3.1.2 Broken Peas

From the sorting system, broken peas will be conveyed to a grinder. Ground broken peas will then move through a bag filter. From this filter, the ground broken peas (now the final co-product), will then be transferred to a designated storage silo. This silo will be equipped with a de-dusting system to capture any dust generated during the transfer process. The de-dusting system in this area will be equipped with a filter, which will remove any dust particles from the air and capture them in a dust bag. The resulting ‘clean air’ will then be released into the building. The dust bag will be replaced when it is full (expected every six to eighteen months depending on use). The filters will be replaced as needed. Used filters and dust bags that are full will be disposed of at the Poplar Point Landfill Facility.

2.3.1.3 Pea Hulls

The pea hulls are removed using a set of rotary cylinders. Once the hulls are removed, the hulls will be conveyed to a sieve for further processing. The hulls will then be conveyed to a set of storage silos in the Production Area. From here, the silos will empty into a pellet press, which will turn the hulls into pellets roughly one inch-long. The freshly pressed pellets will be cooled and then is conveyed to a set of storage silos. These silos will be equipped with a de-dusting system to capture any dust generated during the transfer process. The dust will be retained in a dust bag, and the clean air will be released into the building. Similar to the de-dusting system noted for Broken Peas (Section 2.3.1.2), used dust bags will be disposed of at the Poplar Point Landfill Facility. From the storage silos, when ready, the pellets will be dumped into trucks for bulk loading.

2.3.1.4 ‘Good Peas’

‘Good peas’ from the sorting process move into the pea pre-processing stage described below in Section 2.3.2.

2.3.2 Pea Pre-Processing

Pre-processing involves preparing the ‘good peas’ for starch, protein, and fiber processing. First, ‘good peas’ are created into a pea slurry with the addition of water. This slurry is then further separated into two separate slurries; starch slurry (discussed in Section 2.3.3) and protein and fiber slurry. From the protein and fiber slurry, this is further separated into separate protein slurry (discussed in Section 2.3.4) and fiber slurry (discussed in Section 2.3.5). Each form of slurry is transferred into designated tanks prior to further processing.

Each of these processes is discussed in the following sections below.

2.3.3 Starch Processing

The starch slurry, once extracted during the Pea Pre-Processing (discussed above in Section 2.3.2), will be conveyed into a buffer storage tank. From this tank, the starch slurry will be conveyed to a set of rotary

AECOM 9/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal sieves for further filtration. Once filtered, the starch slurry will then be conveyed to another buffer tank, and when ready, be further refined and concentrated. Concentration of the starch slurry will entail adding process water to the slurry, refining it. Any materials recovered in the refining process will be returned to the Pea Pre-Processing (presented in Section 2.3.2). The slurry will then undergo a second filtration and be converted into a starch cake. Water from this filtration process will be conveyed to the Wastewater Buffer Tank (discussed in Section 2.4.1).

The starch cake will then be conveyed to a flash dryer. This dryer will pump hot air (heated using natural gas from the Utilities Area described in Section 2.1.2) to transform the starch cake into a starch powder. The dryer will be equipped with a de-dusting system. The de-dusting system in this area will be equipped with a filter, which will remove any dust particles from the air and capture them in a dust bag. The resulting ‘clean air’ will then be released to the atmosphere. The dust bag will be replaced when it is full (expected every six to eighteen months depending on use). The filters will be replaced as needed. Used filters and dust bags that are full will be disposed of at the Poplar Point Landfill Facility.

The starch powder will then be conveyed as the final product to a set of storage silos. From the storage silos, when ready, the starch powder will be dumped into trucks for bulk loading.

2.3.4 Protein Processing

Protein processing will begin with protein extraction. The extracted proteins will then be separated into soluble and non-soluble proteins and transferred to the respective holding tanks.

From the holding tank, the non-soluble protein slurry will be transferred a dryer. This dryer will pump hot air (heated using natural gas from the Utilities Area described in Section 2.1.2) to dry the protein. The dried protein will then be conveyed to a grinder to be ground into powdered protein. The dryer will be equipped with a de-dusting system which will vent to the atmosphere as described in Section 2.3.3. The powdered protein will then be conveyed as the final product to a set of storage silos that will feed a packaging line in the Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area (described in Section 2.1.3) to be trucked to market.

The soluble protein slurry will be evaporated and will result in the production of a concentrated protein paste. The condensate from the evaporation process will be collected as condensed vapour and pumped to the Wastewater Buffer Tank (described in Section 2.4.1). The concentrated protein paste will be pumped to the mixing stage of fiber processing as described in Section 2.3.5.

2.3.5 Fiber Processing

During the fiber processing, any proteins removed from the fiber slurry will be pumped back to the Pea Pre-Processing (described in Section 2.3.2). The remaining fiber slurry will be pumped into a mixer.

In the mixer, the fiber slurry will be mixed with the concentrated soluble protein paste collected in the protein processing, described in Section 2.3.4. From the mixer, the fiber and soluble protein slurry will then be pumped into a dryer to produce a dried fiber/protein mix referred to as pea fiber. The dryer will pump hot air (heated using natural gas from the Utilities Area described in Section 2.1.2), and will be equipped with a de-dusting system which will vent to the atmosphere as described in Section 2.3.3. The pea fiber will be conveyed as the final product to one of a set of storage silos prior to bulk loading onto trucks.

2.4 Process Waste

Wastes generated as a part of the Production Process include liquid (wastewater) and solid waste.

2.4.1 Wastewater

Wastewater will be generated in the Production Processes whenever potable or freshwater is used in the system. Sources of wastewater are:

AECOM 10/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

 General wastewater (includes washrooms, cafeteria, laboratories, and offices); and

 Process wastewater (includes the truck washing station both for inbound and outbound trucks, and the three production lines).

General wastewater will go into septic tanks. The tanks will be pumped out on a regular basis, by a licensed contractor. Approximately 16,000 L/day is expected to be pumped out from these septic tanks.

Characteristics of the process wastewater expected from the Facility are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Wastewater Effluent Characterization

Parameter Volume During Peak Production Flow (m3/h) 140 Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg/h) 242 Total Suspended Solids (kg/h) 163 Total Nitrogen (kg/h) 13 Total Phosphorus (kg/h) 2 Note: These values are +/- 15% and will be refined during the detail design phase of the project. Wastewater from the Production Processes will be piped to the Wastewater Buffer Tank. The tank will allow the proponent to store, equalize, and check the quality of wastewater prior to discharging it to the City of Portage la Prairie’s WPCF. This tank will be located within the Project Site (see Figure 04) and will have a capacity of 2,500 m3. The wastewater will be discharged from this buffer tank to the City under an Industrial Services Agreement.

A Wastewater Emergency Lagoon will also be constructed adjacent to the Wastewater Buffer Tank as an emergency storage only. In the event that there is a malfunction within the Facility, wastewater will be directed to the lagoon. The lagoon will be connected to the buffer tank and will trickle-discharge into this tank prior to discharge into the City’s WPCF. This will prevent any overloads of wastewater to the City’s WPCF.

2.4.2 Solid Waste

Sources of solid waste at the Project Site will include:

. Miscellaneous debris, grit, and objects recovered during the pre-processing and processing stage;

. Other debris and impurities collected from the three production lines that cannot be used for any co- products;

. Packaging materials (cardboard, packing tape, binding materials, etc.) that cannot be used; and

. Miscellaneous non-hazardous garbage collected on site at the Administrative offices.

Where materials cannot be recycled, they will be collected in garbage bins and hauled off-site by a licensed contractor, to be disposed of at the Poplar Point Landfill Facility.

2.5 Site Drainage

Any precipitation (rain, melted snow) at the Project Site will be collected and piped underground to a collection tank. Here the water will undergo simple filtration to remove oils, sand, and grit. If after filtration, the quality of the water is deemed acceptable, it will be pumped to a drainage ditch to be discharged to the environment. As the primary source of this water will be precipitation on building rooftops, it is

AECOM 11/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal expected to be fairly clean. However, if after filtration, the quality is deemed unacceptable, the water will be pumped to the Snow Management Area (see Section 2.1.2.8).

2.6 Traffic

Table 3 presents the estimated daily traffic volumes expected during construction and operation of the proposed Pea Processing Facility.

Table 3. Estimated Daily Traffic Volumes [1]

Construction Operation Vehicle 2017 2018 2019 2020 (Average per day) Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Trucks – Raw Material [2] 7 7 15 7 7 4 4 4 30 30 30 Trucks – Chemicals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 [3] 15 [3] 15 [3] Trucks – Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 Trucks – Miscellaneous [4] 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 4 4 Services Vehicles– Employees & 125 150 200 250 250 250 250 250 200 125 100 Visitors Total Facility Traffic 147 167 225 267 267 264 264 264 251 204 179

Notes: [1] Numbers are based on per day, one way. [2] Includes construction material; gravel, sand, etc. [3] Includes chemicals, processing, and packaging materials. [4] Includes contractors (i.e., earth work equipment, structural steel deliveries, concrete trucks, transport of heavy machinery, equipment deliveries, etc.)

2.7 Employees

Once the Facility is commissioned, it is anticipated to employ 150 full time employees, with multiple additional service providers for cleaning, catering, site maintenance, and other miscellaneous support services.

2.8 Construction Equipment Use

Table 4 presents the equipment use expected during construction of the proposed Pea Processing Facility.

AECOM 12/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table 4. Equipment Use during Construction of the Proposed Pea Processing Project

Equipment Units Duration of Use

Forklift (3 to 5 tons) 6 2 x 50 weeks + 2 x 90 weeks + 2 x 125 weeks Zoom Boom (TL1055) 4 2 x 100 weeks + 2 x 45 weeks 30t RT Crane 1 100 weeks 50t Crane 2 45 weeks 100t Crane 2 50 weeks Special heavy lifts (e.g., silos & cyclofilters, etc.) 1 25 weeks Air Compressors 2 100 weeks JLG® Manlift (45’ @ 125’) 6 2 x 30 weeks + 2 x 60 weeks + 2 x 85 weeks Scissor lift (Model 3226) 8 4 x 100 weeks + 4 x 50 weeks Welders (supply by contractor(s)) 20 100 weeks Light Stands (82000 pi2) 20 10 x 50 weeks + 10 x 80 weeks Construction Crew (utility vehicle type 6 2 x 30 weeks + 2 x 80 weeks + 2 x 150 weeks RT)/Supervisor Trucks Front End Loader (supply by contractor(s)) 3 2 x 25 weeks + 1 x 120 weeks Bobcat (cw buckets & forks) 3 2 x 25 weeks + 1 x 120 weeks Caterpillar dozer & compactor (supply by 3 1 x 30 weeks + 1 x 45 weeks + 1 x 5 weeks contractor(s)) Generator (20 & 30 KV) 3 2 x 40 weeks + 1 x 105 weeks Construction heaters (50 – 100 BTU) 30 60 weeks (3 winters x 20 weeks) Excavator (supply by contractor(s)) 3 2 x 25 weeks + 1 x 10 weeks Dump Trucks (supply by contractor(s)) 15 +/- 15,000 truck loads = 15 x 30 weeks + 4 x 70 weeks

2.9 Project Schedule

The proposed project schedule is provided in the table below.

Table 5. Proposed Scheduling

Proposed Schedule (subject to the Project Phases and Activity results of Regulatory review) Construction Bringing Materials and Equipment to Site (excavating, hauling, August 2017 stockpiling, storing fuels) Preparing Construction Site (Clearing vegetation, installing utilities) August 2017 – December 2017 Constructing the production, storage, utilities, packaging and outbound trucking, and administrative offices areas (erecting August 2017 to July 2019 buildings, installing equipment, grading, backfilling) Operation Commissioning the Facility July 2019 Transporting, Storing and Handling Materials & Finished Products July 2019 onwards Handling Process Wastes (wastewater, emissions, solid wastes) July 2019 onwards Maintaining Project Site July 2019 onwards

AECOM 13/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

3. Scope of the Assessment

To assess the potential environmental impact of the proposed Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”), spatial and temporal boundaries were defined as follows:

3.1 Temporal Boundaries

The temporal boundaries of the assessment are divided as follows:

. Construction Phase – Construction from August 2017 to July 2019. . Operation Phase – July 2019 onwards. . Decommissioning Phase – There are currently no plan to decommission the Facility. When the Project Site needs to be decommissioned at some point in the future, a site decommissioning plan will be filed with the appropriate regulators prior to decommissioning.

3.2 Spatial Boundaries

Spatial boundaries used for the assessment are described below. However, where specifically noted, the boundaries may be adjusted to suit the Environmental Component (EC) or Social Component (SC) affected.

. Project Site – is comprised of the Facility and the access road. . Project Area – is comprised of an area 2 km beyond the Project Site, which is intended to take into account the effects of the Project (such as noise, emissions and traffic). . Project Region – is comprised of an area up to 10 km beyond the Project Site, which is intended to take into account the maximum spatial extent of any potential impacts of the Project. Figure 03 shows the Project Site, Project Area, and Project Region.

AECOM 14/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

4. Existing Environment

4.1 Biophysical Setting

The proposed Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”) is located within the MacGregor Ecodistrict, within the Manitoba Plain Ecoregion of the Prairies Ecozone as shown in Figure 05 (Smith et al., 1998).

The following sections provide information regarding the existing environment within the study area. Information was gathered via desktop review, a review of information from other developments in the area, and a site visit on December 8, 2016.

4.1.1 Topography

The Project Site is located within the Lake Manitoba Plain Ecoregion. The topography of the Project Region can be generally described as smooth, level to gently sloping lowland lacustrine and alluvial plain (Smith et al., 1998). The topography of the Project Area varies from approximately 270 meters above sea level (masl) 1.2 km south of the site to 262 masl across the northern portion of the property (Natural Resources Canada, 1999). The Project Site itself varies in elevation from 267 masl in the southern area of the Project Site, falling to 261 masl in the northern portion of the Project Site.

4.1.2 Soil

The soils in the MacGregor Ecodistrict are generally imperfectly drained Gleyed Rego Black Chernozems and local areas of poorly drains Gleysolic soils are fairly common. High water tables are prevalent, created by a shallow clay substrate that impedes internal drainage. (Smith et al., 1998)

Six soil associations (Ehrlich et al., 1957) are found in the Project Area. The predominant soil association is the Burnside association, followed by the Red River and the Portage soil associations. The Gladstone and Agassiz soil associations located in the northwest portion of the property and the Almasippi association located along the southern part of the study area. Burnside, Red River, Portage, and Gladstone associations are described as clay and sandy loam to silty clay, and the Almasippi and Agassiz associations are described as sand to fine sandy loam.

Soil in the Project Area is considered to be capable of sustained use for cultivated field crops. The land capability for agriculture within the Project Area is classified as soils with moderate limitations that restrict the range of crops or require moderate conservation practices due to excess water. (Canada Land Inventory, 1966)

A geotechnical investigation was conducted in two phases (Phase I and Phase II) at the Project Site. Phase I of the geotechnical investigation took place from December 10 to 20, 2016. Phase II of the geotechnical investigation took place between February 14 to 27, 2017.

During Phase I (southern portion of the Project Site), a total of 39 test holes were drilled ranging in depth. The deep test holes were terminated after auger refusal into glacial till or at a maximum depth of 33.5 m below the ground surface. The intermediate test holes were advanced to depths ranging from 20.2 m to 15.2 m below the ground surface. The intermediate to shallow test holes were advanced to depths ranging from 10.6 m to 6.1 m below the ground surface while the shallow test holes were advanced to depth of 3.0 m below existing grade. In general, soils encountered during the geotechnical investigation consisted of the following:

. Top Soil; . Organic Clay; . Silty/Clay Complex; . Clay and Silt; and

AECOM 15/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

. Glacial Till. During the Phase II geotechnical investigation (northern portion of the Project Site), a total 53 test holes were drilled ranging in depth. Similar to Phase I, the deep test holes were terminated after auger refusal into glacial till or to a maximum depth of 33.7 m below the ground surface. The intermediate test holes were advanced to depths ranging from 11.1 m to 6.1 m below the ground surface. The shallow test holes were advanced to a depth of 3 m below the ground surface. In general, soils encountered during Phase II of the geotechnical investigation consisted of the following: . Top Soil; . Organic Clay; . Silty/Clay Complex; . Clay and Silt; . Silt; and . Glacial Till.

4.1.3 Geology

The surficial geology within the Project Area consists of offshore glaciolacustrine sediments. This includes clay, silt, minor sand, and laminated deposits. These were deposited from suspension in offshore and deep waters of glacial Lake Agassiz. (Matile and Keller, 2004)

The underlying bedrock geology in the vicinity of the proposed site is composed mostly of shales, sandstones, and siltstones of the Jurassic Period from the Mesozoic Era (approximately 208 million years ago). These include red agrillaceous dolomitic siltstone and sandstone of the Amaranth Formation; limestone, dolomite, and shale of the Reston Formation; and sandstone, shale, and limestone of the Melita Formation. (Geological Survey of Canada, 1987)

4.1.4 Groundwater

According to the aquifer maps of southern Manitoba, groundwater aquifers are found in the bedrock in the vicinity of the Project Region. These aquifers are generally very salty, with total dissolved solids concentrations ranging between 5,000 mg/L and 100,000 mg/L, and as a result are not a significant water source. (Rutulis, 1986a)

Shallow groundwater aquifers may also be found in the vicinity of the Project Region, within lenses of sand and gravel. The depth of the shallow groundwater aquifers ranges from a few meters to more than 100 m and typically produce well yields between 0.1 L/s and 10 L/s. Generally, groundwater quality within the shallow groundwater aquifers ranges from very poor to excellent. (Rutulis, 1986b)

During the geotechnical investigations, four standpipe piezometers were installed during the Phase I investigation. Two of the standpipes were installed in the glacial till and three standpipes were installed in the clay and silt unit. Groundwater elevation was recorded at 261.9 masl in the piezometer installed into the glacial till. The groundwater elevation of the piezometers installed in the Clay and Silt unit ranged between 261.5 masl and 260.4 masl.

During the Phase II geotechnical investigation, an additional four standpipe piezometers were installed. Groundwater was recorded in one of the piezometer seven days after installation at a depth of 26.5 m below the ground surface installed in the glacial till.

4.1.4.1 Extent of Groundwater Use

A review of the Groundwater Information Network (2014) online mapping service indicated 32 groundwater wells in the Project Area as shown in Figure 06. According to the groundwater well records, 19 were registered as production wells, eight were registered as test wells, and five were

AECOM 16/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal registered as observation wells. Of the production wells, 14 were identified as domestic use, four as livestock use, and one as other use.

There are six groundwater wells located within 300 m of the Project Site. Of these six groundwater wells, three were registered as production wells for domestic water use and three were registered as missing for either observation or test well water use. The groundwater well depths range from 5.5 m below the ground surface (mbgs) to 11.4 mbgs. According to the Groundwater Information Network (2014), these groundwater wells are screened for groundwater ranging from 2.4 mbgs to 8.5 mbgs. The depth to groundwater ranges from 1.5 mbgs to 2.4 mbgs.

4.1.5 Climate

The Portage la Prairie meteorological station measures precipitation while the Brandon meteorological station measures temperature and wind speed and direction. The Brandon and Portage la Prairie areas have similar land use and since temperature and wind speed may be affected by surrounding land use, the Brandon meteorological station was used to obtain climate statistics relevant to the Project Area. Table 6 shows the monthly climate normal data relevant to the Project Area.

Table 6. Climate Data for the Project Area

Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Code Daily Average Temperature -16.6 -13.6 -6.2 4.0 10.6 15.9 18.5 17.7 11.8 4.1 -5.6 -14.0 2.2 A (°C)[1]

Precipitation[2] 21.3 16.2 25.7 28.3 58.4 90.0 78. 68.3 50.1 43.2 25.8 26.8 532.4 C Average Wind Speed (km/h) [1] 15.3 15.0 15.1 15.9 16.8 14.9 12.3 13.2 14.7 15.4 14.8 15.0 14.9 A Sources: [1] Environment Canada, Portage la Prairie CDA meteorological station (2016a). [2] Environment Canada, Brandon A meteorological station (2016b). “A”: World Meteorological Organization (WMO) “3 and 5 rule” (i.e., no more than 3 consecutive and no more than 5 total missing for either temperature or precipitation) between 1971 and 2000. “C”: at least 20 years. The Portage la Prairie area is described as experiencing a continental climate. The MacGregor Ecodistrict, within which the Project is located, is the warmest subdivision of the Grassland Transition Ecoclimatic Region in southern Manitoba. The average growing season is 182 days and the number of growing degree-days is about 1,700 (Smith et al., 1998). The area receives 532 mm of precipitation per year, with 415.6 mm as rainfall and 118.5 cm as snow (Environment Canada, 2016b). The annual daily average temperature at the Brandon meteorological station was 2.2°C, ranging from -17°C in January to 18°C in July. Extreme temperatures range from -46°C to 38.5°C as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Additional Weather Parameters

Parameter Value Extreme Maximum Temperature (°C)[1] 38.5 (Aug 6, 1988) Extreme Minimum Temperature (°C)[1] -45.6 (Jan 7, 1966) Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm)[2] 137.0 (Aug 16, 1985) Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm)[2] 29.0 (Oct 30, 1971) Sources: [1] Environment Canada, Portage la Prairie CDA meteorological station (2016a) [2] Brandon A meteorological station (2016b).

AECOM 17/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

4.1.6 Ambient Air Quality

An Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report was completed by AECOM in March 2017 and is included in Appendix C.

The parameters taken into consideration for the proposed Facility include:

. Fine Particulate (PM2.5 and PM10); . Total Suspended Particulate (TSP); . Carbon Monoxide (CO);

. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2); and

. Sulphur Dioxide (SO2). The background concentrations of the modelled parameters were obtained from the nearest sources that have available data. The locations of the data sources include Brandon, Manitoba (approximately 120 km west of the Facility), and Winnipeg, Manitoba (approximately 85 km (east of the Facility) as these stations are the closest to the Project Site. The background conditions at the applicable averaging periods over a period of 5 years from 2010 to 2014 are summarized in Table 8. A comparison of these to the Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria (MAAQC) including the Maximum Tolerable Level (MTL), Maximum Acceptable Level (MAL), and the Maximum Desirable Level (MDL) where applicable is also provided.

Table 8. Ambient Background Air Quality

Data Ambient MAAQC Units of Pollutant Source Averaging Period Background Concentrations Measurement Location Air Quality MTL MAL MDL th [2] Brandon, 3 [1] 24 hour 90 percentile 10.8 - 30 - PM2.5 Manitoba µg/m

th [2] Brandon, 3 [1] 24 hour 90 percentile 34.5 - 50 - PM10 Manitoba µg/m Brandon, 24 hour 34.5 400 120 TSP mg/m3 Manitoba Annual 15.3 70 60 Winnipeg, 1 hour maximum 3.43 35 15 CO mg/m3 20 Manitoba 8 hour maximum 1.70 15 6 1 hour 90th percentile [2] 20.0 400 Brandon, 3 th [2] 18.2 1000 200 60 NO2 Manitoba µg/m 24 hour 90 percentile Annual Mean 7.5 100 1 hour maximum 53.6 900 450 Winnipeg, 3 5.6 800 300 150 SO2 Manitoba µg/m 24 hour maximum Annual Mean 0.0 60 30

Notes:

[1] PM2.5/PM10 is assumed to be reported at standard temperature and pressure. TSP background is assumed to be the same as PM10 background. [2] The 90th percentile for 1-hr and 24-hr averaging periods for PM and NOx were applied to the background concentrations for consistency with the guidance from the Manitoba Conservation and Water

Additionally, there is a large industrial facility (Simplot) located north of Project Site. Emissions from Simplot were not directly considered in the ambient background as there are no continuous monitoring sites in the immediate area that would account for this facility. However, the ambient stations that were used in the Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report are expected to represent a larger impact from industrial activity than a local station would, and so the approach applied is considered conservative.

AECOM 18/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

4.1.7 Noise

A Noise Impact Study (NIS) was completed by AECOM in March 2017 and is included in Appendix D.

As Manitoba does not have any notable noise guidelines and the RM of Portage la Prairie does not have a noise by-law, noise criteria from international standards and other Canadian jurisdictions were considered, including Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. It was determined that the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Guideline NPC-300 has the most conservative noise level limits for rural areas. Therefore, the sound level limits for Plane of Window and Outdoor (e.g., backyard) Points of Reception (PORs) in rural (Class 3) areas were used for the NIS. The table below summarizes the minimum MOECC sound level limits.

Table 9. Minimum MOECC Sound Level Limits for Class 3 (Rural) Areas

Stationary Sources Time Period Point of Reception Location Minimum Sound Level Limit (One Hour Leq, dBA) Daytime (7AM to 7PM) Plane of Window 45 Evening (7PM to 11PM) Plane of Window 40 Night time (11PM to 7AM) Plane of Window 40 Daytime (7AM to 7PM) Outdoor Living Space 45 Evening (7PM to 11PM) Outdoor Living Space 40 Night time (11PM to 7AM) Outdoor Living Space -

According to Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Man Reg 217/2006, Section 12.3:

“If a worker is or is likely to be exposed to noise in a workplace that exceeds 80 dBA Lex but does not exceed 85 dBA Lex, the employer must; (a) Inform the worker about the hazards of the level of noise; and (b) On the request of the worker, provides him or her with i. A hearing protector that complies with CAN/CSA Standard-Z94.2-02, Hearing Protection Devices – Performance, Selection, Care, and Use, and ii. Information about the selection, use and care of the hearing protection.”

If the noise exposure at the workplace is more than 85 dBA Lex and if reasonably practicable, the employer must implement sound control measures to reduce the noise. If it is not reasonably practicable to reduce the noise exposure to 85 dBA or less, the employer must:

. Inform the worker about the hazards; . Provide the worker with hearing protection (CAN/CSA Standard-Z94.2-02, Hearing Protection Devices – Performance, Selection, Care, and Use) that reduces the worker’s noise exposure to 85 dBA Lex or less; and . Provide the worker with an initial baseline test within 70 days after the initial exposure and further tests at least once every year after the initial baseline test.

4.2 Aquatic Environment

4.2.1 Hydrology

The Project Site is located in the Rat Creek Drainage Basin and the Facility is within 7.5 km of Deep Creek, a major tributary of the Whitemud River. Drainage from the site flows northward through various drains rather than flowing south to the Assiniboine River.

AECOM 19/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

A second order provincial drain runs south to north adjacent to the east side of the Project Site, eventually forming the Mount Pleasant Drain that flows northward. A municipal drain runs south to north adjacent to the west side of the Project Site to flow into the Mount Pleasant Drain 0.5 km north of the site. The combined drain then flows into Deep Creek, a tributary of Rat Creek, which flows northward into the Whitemud River. The Whitemud River winds its way north and eventually drains into Lake Manitoba, located approximately 25 km north of the Project Site.

4.2.2 Aquatic Resources

Milani (2013) conducted a fish habitat classification of agricultural waterways. According to this classification, there were five Habitat Types (A through E) identified based on gross measurements of fish habitat complexity and the fish species presence (Commercial, Recreational, Indigenous or species listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) SC 2002, C29 captured or expected vs. Forage Fish species captured or expected vs. no fish captured or expected). Generally Habitat Types A and B support Commercial, Recreational, Indigenous or SARA species with Type A Habitat being complex and Type B Habitat being simplified. Habitat Type C and D drains support Forage Fish species with Type C Habitat being complex and Type D Habitat being simplified. Habitat Type E drains can be simple or complex but provide indirect fish habitat.

Milani (2013) identified the drains within the Project Area as Class E Habitat. Class E Habitats do not support direct fish habitat which generally includes ephemeral watercourses that typically have insufficient flow volume or flow duration to allow fish to complete one or more of their life processes. There is no specific habitat characterization or fish community information available for any watercourse within the Project Area.

Within the Project Region, there are several sampling sites visited by Milani (2013) along Rat Creek, Deep Creek, Mount Pleasant Drain, and an unnamed tributary to Rat Creek. Northern Pike, White Sucker, Brook Stickleback, Finescale Dace, and Northern Redbelly Dace were captured in the Project Region from those locations. Habitat was assessed as a Class A or B Habitat in Rat Creek and Class B Habitat in Mount Pleasant Drain. In general, each site (where fishing effort was expended) was rated on twelve instream and riparian zone habitat conditions. Each habitat condition was given a score from 0 to 20 (with lower score representing poorer habitat) and scores across all conditions were summed to calculate the habitat assessment score at each site. Habitat assessment scores at locations within the Rat Creek watershed, within the Project Region, ranged from 77 (marginal habitat) to 143 (sub-optimal habitat).

The adjacent Assiniboine River drainage (a portion of which is within the Project Region) hosts a diversity of fish species and aquatic habitats. The Assiniboine River provides year-round habitat for a number of aquatic species. Stewart and Watkinson (2004) listed 57 species, representing 16 families, as having been documented in the Assiniboine River Watershed. The majority of the fish are classified as cool-water species including Lake Whitefish. Instream vegetation varies spatially and temporally based on season, bottom substrate, and flow conditions. No commercial fishing occurs on the Assiniboine River, but it is expected that both recreational and Indigenous use fishing takes place along the Assiniboine River.

4.3 Terrestrial Environment

A site visit was conducted on December 8, 2016. Due to the time of year of the initial site visit, a follow-up site visit will be conducted in conjunction with the Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) (as discussed below in Section 4.5), once the snow has melted. The information outlined in this section is a combination of desktop research and AECOM’s experience with other developments in the area.

4.3.1 Flora

Smith et al. (1998) classified the area to be part of the McGregor Ecodistrict, within the Lake Manitoba Plain Ecoregion, within the Prairie Ecozone, which comprises groves of trembling aspen and balsam poplar on Black Chernozemic soils. The vegetation in the McGregor Ecodistrict has been heavily altered by cultivation and only small areas of undeveloped, native vegetation remains. Native vegetation consists

AECOM 20/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal of tall prairie grasses, meadow grasses, and sedges. Willow, Trembling Aspen, and Balsam Poplar with associated shrubs such as Saskatoon, Silverberry, Snowberries, and Red-Osier Dogwood are interspersed throughout the ecoregion (Smith et al., 1998).

A site visit was completed on December 8, 2016. As the Project Site was snow covered during the site visit, limited vegetation was observed. The Project Site is currently agricultural fields including the neighbouring properties. There appears to be a low lying area along the northern edge of the Project Site where cat tails were observed along with some taller grasses and smaller shrubs. A wind row was also observed along the southern property boundary which consists of smaller trees and shrubs.

4.3.2 Fauna

The Project Area is primarily cultivated agricultural cropland. Wildlife species commonly found in the area reflect the existing land use and are largely restricted to species that have adapted to human activities. Key wildlife species expected to occur near the Facility include ungulates (deer), carnivores (coyote, fox, and weasel), small mammals (Jackrabbit, Snowshoe Hare, and mice), owls, songbirds, and waterfowl.

During the site visit on December 8, 2016, no wildlife species were observed.

4.4 Protected Species

To identify species at risk that may occur in the Project Region, a variety of online databases were examined including the Department of Sustainable Development, Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (CDC) Occurrence of Species by Ecoregion (DSD, 2013), the Bird Studies Canada (BSC) Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA), and the Manitoba Herpetological Atlas (MHA). The species listed in these databases were cross-referenced with Schedule 1 of the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) SC 2002, C29 and The Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act (Manitoba), CCSM c E111 to determine the provincially listed rare or sensitive species with the ecoregion and Project Region. Furthermore, distribution maps and habitat requirements were examined to determine the likelihood of occurrence of federally and/or provincially listed species in the Project Region. The results of the annual surveys conducted by Manitoba CDC were also examined to identify surveys for protected species in the vicinity of the Project Region; the most recent survey results available were from 2014.

Based on this search, there are 26 listed species that may occur in the Project Region (Table 10).

AECOM 21/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table 10. Federally and Provincially Listed Species that May Occur in the Project Region

Species SARA Status MESA Status Environmental Considerations Likelihood of Occurrence in Project Region Invertebrate Animals Found in native tall-grass prairies that feature Low: one of two remaining population centres Dakota Skipper bluestem grasses and plants such as smooth approximately 15 km north of the Project Region Endangered Threatened Hesperia dacotae camas, harebell, black-eyed Susan, and wood and is associated with vegetation within the lily (nectar sources). [1] ecoregion Found in medium to large rivers with slow to High: populations exist in the Assiniboine River, Mapleleaf Mussel Endangered Endangered moderate currents and firmly packed substrate within the Project Region (however, no in-water Quadrula quadrula [1] of sand, coarse gravel or clay/mud. works will be conducted as part of this project). Vascular Plants Preference for dry prairie, open wetlands, Low: one known population occurs near Poplar Gattinger's Agalinis Endangered Endangered roadsides, glades, bluffs and alvars. [1] Point, approximately 20 km northeast of the Agalinis gattingeri Project Region. Found in dry prairie habitats with sandy soils. [2] Low: prefer sandy hill ridges, the nearest Hackberry Not Ranked Threatened population is at the south end of Lake Manitoba, Celtis occidentalis approximately 15 km north of the Project Region. Small White Lady’s- Found in calcareous prairie openings in Low: occurs in the southern , Slipper Endangered Endangered wooded grasslands, or on more open, south- approximately 25 km north of the Project Region. Cypripedium candidum facing slopes. [3] Riddell’s Goldenrod Special Concern Threatened Prefers moist to wet, calcium rich soils. Low: small populations occur between southeast Solidago riddellii Manitoba’s remaining populations occur along Winnipeg to the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve near roads. [2] the U.S. border. [2] Western Silvery Aster Threatened Threatened Found in dry prairies, fields and openings in bur Low: mostly found in three areas in Manitoba; Symphyotrichum oak/trembling aspen woodlands. Can be found Birds Hill Provincial Park, Carlowire, and between sericeum in roadside ditches and adjacent to gravel Gardenton and the U.S. border. [2] pits. [2] Vertebrate Animals Baird’s Sparrow Not Ranked Endangered Found primarily in mixed grass prairies or in Low: the Project Region is east of the historical Ammodramus bairdii lightly grazed pastures. [2] range. Prefer native vegetation of intermediate height Low: the Project Region is east of the historical Sprague’s Pipit and density in areas where habitats are lightly range. Threatened Threatened Anthus spragueii to moderately grazed or where fires periodically remove vegetation. [4]

AECOM 22/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Species SARA Status MESA Status Environmental Considerations Likelihood of Occurrence in Project Region Found in a variety of open habitats including Moderate: historically common breeders in grasslands, peat bogs, marshes, sand-sage southern Manitoba, but are now considered Short-eared Owl concentrations and old pastures. [1] erratic breeders in open habitats in the southern Special Concern Threatened Asio flammeus Occasionally breeds in agricultural fields. [1] portion of the province. Prefers nesting sites in dense grasslands, as well as tundra with areas of small willows. [1] In Manitoba, pasture lands are the most Low: the Project Region is east of the historical Burrowing Owl commonly used habitat but they have also range. Endangered Endangered Athene cunicularia been found nesting in ditches, croplands, golf courses, and manicured lawns. [2] Chestnut-collared Found in native prairie grasslands and typically Low: the Project Region is east of the historical Longspur Threatened Endangered breeds in recently grazed or mowed, arid, short range near Carberry, Manitoba. Calcarius ornatus or mixed-grass prairie. [5] Breeding preference in pine and oak based Low: breeding mainly in the Aspen Parkland semi-open forests with clearings or forests that Ecoregion transition zone from southeastern Whip-poor-will Threatened Threatened are regenerating. May feed in shrubby pastures Manitoba to eastern central Saskatchewan. Caprimulgus vociferus or wetlands with perches. Overwinters in mixed coniferous-broadleaved forests. [1] Mainly associated with urban and rural areas High: breeding areas have been recorded in the where the birds can find chimneys to use as Portage la Prairie area. Chimney Swift Threatened Threatened nesting and resting sites. A small portion of the Chaetura pelagica population is likely to still use hollow trees for nesting. [1] Prefer nesting above the high-water mark on Low: no lakes within the Project Region with exposed sandy or gravelly beaches. [1] suitable habitat. Piping Plover On the prairies, nesting occurs on gravel Endangered Endangered Charadrius melodus shores of shallow, saline lakes and on sandy shores of larger prairie lakes and seeps provide foraging habitat. [1] Generally found in dry, open grasslands and Low: populations exist in the lower reaches of the breed primarily in temporary wetlands or edges Assiniboine River (> 50 km away), and historically of some permanent or semi-permanent within the Project Region (however, the Project Common Snapping [1] wetlands. Region is in another watershed). Turtle Special Concern Not Ranked These shallow, clear pools are often found in Chelydra serpentina imperfectly drained, sandy areas in grasslands, serpentina pastures, ditches or agricultural fields and range in size from large wetlands to small puddles. [1]

AECOM 23/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Species SARA Status MESA Status Environmental Considerations Likelihood of Occurrence in Project Region In Manitoba, found south of the treeline and Moderate: breeding habitat covers most of inhabits mixed and coniferous forests. [1] Manitoba, no observations of nesting sites within Nests in a wide range of open, vegetation-free 50 km of the Project Region. Common Nighthawk habitats including dunes, beaches, recently Threatened Threatened Chordeiles minor harvested forests, burnt-over areas, logged areas, rocky outcrops, rocky barrens, grasslands, pastures, peat bogs, marshes, lakeshores and river banks. [1] Found in marshes dominated by sedges, true Moderate: breeding range overlaps with Project Yellow Rail grasses and rushes with little to no standing Region, occurrences are concentrated in the Coturnicops Special Concern Not Ranked water. [1] Boreal Plains and Aspen Parkland Ecoregions. noveboracensis Also found in damp fields and meadows, on floodplains of rivers and streams. [1] Range of habitats but suitable nest sites are Low: confirmed breeding evidence located south Peregrine Falcon Special Concern Endangered patchily distributed. [2] of Winnipeg, approximately 80 km east of the Falco peregrinus anatum Project Region. Found strictly in marshes dominated by Low: breeding range overlaps with Project emergent vegetation surrounded by open water Region, observations noted north of Project Least Bittern and stable water levels. [1] Region. Threatened Endangered Ixobrychus exilis Prefers to breed in cattail-dominated marshes, but can also be found in areas of other robust emergent plants and shrubby swamps. [1] Found in relatively open, grassy sites; pastured Moderate: breeding range overlaps with Project Loggerhead Shrike Endangered Threatened or hayed areas are preferred; often nest in the Region, confirmed observations noted southwest Lanius ludovicianus [2] vicinity of hedgerows or farm shelterbelts. of Project Region near Saskatchewan border. Overwinter in well-oxygenated water bodies Moderate: range of species overlaps with Project that do not freeze to the bottom, including Region, likely habitat within the Project Region streams, creeks, rivers, deep lakes and ponds. [1] Northern Leopard Frog Breeds in pools, ponds, marshes, lakes and Special Concern Not Ranked Lithobates pipiens slow-moving streams and creeks that are typically located in an open area with abundant vegetation and no fish. [1] Summer in moist upland meadows and native prairie, riparian areas and ponds. [1] Silver Chub Special Concern Not Ranked In Manitoba, found in large, moderate flowing High: known to be found in the Assiniboine River Macrhybopsis storeriana rivers with a substrate of silt or sand. [1] system. [1]

AECOM 24/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Species SARA Status MESA Status Environmental Considerations Likelihood of Occurrence in Project Region Found in a variety of habitat including open oak High: species range overlaps with Project and beech forests, grasslands, forest edges, Region, likely habitat within the Project Region. Red-headed orchards, pastures, riparian forests, roadsides, Woodpecker urban parks, golf courses, cemeteries, along Threatened Threatened [1] Melanerpes beaver ponds and brooks. erythrocephalus Nests are usually found in dead or dying trees but can also make nests in dead branches of live trees. [1] Breeding habitat consisted of treeless upland Moderate: species range may overlap with tundra with dwarf shrubs and grassy tundra Project Region, likely habitat within the Project Eskimo Curlew Endangered Endangered meadows. [1] Region. Numerius borealis Spring found in tallgrass and eastern mixed- grass prairies and in cultivated fields. [1] The critical habitat for the Prairie Skink is Moderate: a single observation for this species

characterized by open native grasslands has been reported within the Project Region6. Prairie Skink Endangered Endangered adjacent to stands of trees and shrubs which Plestiodon provide thermoregulatory habitat as well as septentrionalis [7] overwintering habitat. Sources: [1] Species at Risk Public Registry (Government of Canada, 2016). [2] Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (DSD, 2013). [3] Recovery Strategy for the Small White Lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium candidum) in Canada (Government of Canada, 2015) [4] Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas, Sprague’s Pipit, Breeding Evidence (Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas, 2014). [5] Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas, Chestnut-collared Longspur (Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas, 2012). [6] Manitoba Herpetological Atlas (MHA, 2016). [7] Recovery Strategy for the Prairie Skink (Plestiodon septentrionalis) in Canada [Proposed]. (Government of Canada, 2016).

AECOM 25/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

A terrestrial survey will be conducted in conjunction with the HRIA (discussed below in Section 4.5) to confirm presence or absence of any protected species that have been noted to have a high potential of occurrence at the Project Site. These include the Chimney Swift, Red-headed Woodpecker, and Prairie Skink.

4.4.1 Migratory Birds

In the Lake Manitoba Plain Ecoregion, waterfowl are common and are protected under Article I of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, SC 1994, c 22.

A review of the BSC Manitoba BBA online database revealed that 89 bird species have demonstrated various levels of breeding evidence within the 100 km2 atlas square (14NA43) which the Project Region resides. Of these identified bird species only one MESA and SARA listed species, the Red-headed Woodpecker (Threatened), has demonstrated breeding behavior within the square. No other MESA or SARA listed bird species were recorded to have demonstrated breeding behaviors in the Manitoba BSC BBA database review for the Project Region.

The SARA birds (rails, sparrows, pipits, longspur, swift, plover, bitterns, shrike, and woodpeckers) identified above in Table 10 are identified as long distance migrants. No species listed in Table 10 were observed at the Project Site during the site visit on December 8, 2016 however, one endangered bird species is known to nest in the Project Region; the Chimney Swift and the range of the Red-headed Woodpecker also overlaps with the Project Region. Breeding areas have been recorded in the Portage la Prairie area for Chimney Swift where the birds can find chimneys to use as nesting and resting sites. The Red-headed Woodpecker utilizes a variety of habitats including open deciduous forests markedly those dominated by oaks and/or beach, grasslands, orchards, pasturelands and urban parks (COSEWIC, 2007). The Red-headed Woodpecker is a cavity nester and prefers to nest in dead trees or dead parts of live trees. Furthermore, the Red-headed Woodpecker has been observed to excavate nest holes in utility poles as well as other wooden structures such as buildings (Peterson et al., 2001).

4.4.2 Reptiles and Amphibians

A review of the MHA online database revealed a single observation for Prairie Skink (Record #: 4599) within the Project Region and the recorded observation is approximately 2 km southwest of the southern extent of the Project Site; therefore potentially within the Project Area. The Prairie Skink is currently listed as Endangered under both the MESA as well as SARA and is the only species of lizard native to the province of Manitoba. The known distribution of the Prairie Skink does overlap with the southern extent of the Project Region but does not overlap with the Project Area or the Project Site. A map of the currently known distribution of the Prairie Skink has been included as Figure 07.

The critical habitat for the Prairie Skink is characterized by open native grasslands adjacent to stands of trees and shrubs which provide thermoregulatory habitat as well as overwintering habitat. Preference is given to locations with a moderate amount of natural cover objects such as woody debris, rocks and thick clusters of vegetation typically within or in close proximity to areas with loose sandy soils that permit shallow burrowing (Government of Canada, 2016). As the Project Region is close to the known provincial distribution of the Prairie Skink a site visit will be conducted when the snow has melted to evaluate if critical habitat requirements are present within the Project Site and Project Area.

4.5 Heritage Resources

A screening request to Historic Resources Branch (HRB) was sent on December 7, 2016 for the proposed Facility to determine if there are any potential heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed development and if a Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) is required. The Archaeological Unit of the HRB indicated that the Branch has some concerns with the project and the potential to impact significant heritage resources has been deemed high in this area. Therefore, the Branch recommended that a HRIA be completed. A copy of the correspondence received from HRB is

AECOM 26/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal included in Appendix E. A field archaeological assessment will be conducted in the spring of 2017 as soon as the snow clears. This assessment will be filed as a supplemental filing upon completion.

Based on the response from HRB, AECOM initiated a discussion with HRB to gain an understanding of the criteria that resulted in the need for a HRIA. HRB pointed to a variety of factors, including:

. The proximity of the proposed project to previously discovered Heritage Resource Sites; . The location of the proposed project in relations to topographic features such as the Assiniboine River and the sand dunes located south of Portage la Prairie; and . A lack of information specific to Heritage Resources at the project location, leading to uncertainty in an understanding of potential impacts on-site. The technical requirements of a field-based HRIA cannot be met under winter conditions. Ground surface visibility is required, and shovel tests are required to be excavated and screened to identify artifacts. Shovel tests cannot be adequately conducted under frozen soil conditions. As such, the HRIA will need to be deferred until the appropriate conditions can be met.

In lieu of the completion of a project-specific HRIA, an overview of the above-noted concerns identified by HRB has been developed to support a review of the proposed project.

4.5.1 Heritage Resources Overview

Both pre and post-contact settlement patterns and corresponding archaeological site locations are significantly influenced by the physical environment. The proposed Project Region is influenced by several environmental features.

The Project Site is located on the Red River Plain, which marks the area formerly occupied by glacial Lake Agassiz. The glacial lake bottom of the Red River Plain is characterized by flat to very gently rolling prairie and clay rich soils, and would have been covered by tall grass prairie vegetation in the pre-contact period. Fresh water sources are few and treed areas would have been limited to the areas surrounding pothole sloughs, marshes, and the banks of the major watercourses. Although the tall grass prairie on the Red River Plain was frequently ravaged by recurring prairie fires, it supported large bison herds in the pre-contact past. Although located on the Red River Plain, the site is just east of the Lower Assiniboine Delta. The Lower Assiniboine Delta has substantially more forest vegetation than in the adjacent plain, particularly in the areas surrounding the numerous pothole sloughs. In the pre-contact past, a diversity of plant and animal species were found in the Lower Assiniboine Delta among the interspersed forest and prairie areas. The forested areas provided shelter for people and bison during the cold season and provided an ample supply of firewood. Both the Red River Plain and the Lower Assiniboine Delta physiographic regions were occupied by pre-contact and historic period communities (Graham, 2005).

The importance of the Assiniboine River to people occupying and travelling through south-western Manitoba was significant. The river flows south along the western edge of the Riding, Porcupine, and Duck Mountains on the west side of the province. From there it enters the Souris Plain, turning from south to east across the province. The Assiniboine River was important to people as a source of water, fish, and other fresh water resources, and was also important for its function as a travel corridor connecting eastern and western Manitoba (Graham, 2005).

Archaeological research has shown a positive correlation between sandhills and archaeological site locations in southwestern Manitoba (Graham and Nicholson, 2003; Graham and Running IV, 2003). The density of archaeological sites within the sandhills is explained by the creation of interdunal wetlands resulting in a rich and varied environment between the dunes (Boyd, 2000). The moisture gradient radiating out from these wetlands creates recurring ecotones of habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals. Furthermore, the sandhills stand out as isolated “islands” of forest relative to the surrounding grasslands, offering fuel for fires and shelter from inclement weather.

The project site is located in Manitoba’s Aspen Parkland, a transitional area between the grasslands to the south and the boreal forest to the north. According to Syms (1977), the aspen parkland had a higher

AECOM 27/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal availability of resources than the boreal forest in all seasons. The transitional aspen parkland between the boreal forest and the grasslands contains most of the resources of both biomes (Ray, 1974).

To develop an understanding of pre-development conditions at the site, AECOM requested the Heritage Resources records from HRB for the Project Site, the Project Area, and the Project Region. No previously recorded sites were identified at the Project Site, and only one previously recorded heritage site is within the Project Area. An additional 44 heritage sites have been recorded within the Project Region. Table 11 presents the summary of previously recorded heritage sites and Figure 08 illustrates the location of these heritage sites.

Table 11. Summary of Previously Recorded Heritage Site within the Project Region

Location Borden No. Site Type Cultural Affiliation Priority Project Site - - - - Project Area DlLn-Y1 H. Uninterpreted - Low A. Campsite; M. Fur Trade Project Region DlLn-1 Historic -0- Post DlLn-10 I. Isolated Find - Low DlLn-11 A. Campsite Woodland Low DlLn-12 A. Campsite Precontact; Historic Low DlLn-13 I. Isolated Find Historic Low DlLn-14 F. Burial - Low DlLn-15 F. Burial - Low DlLn-2 I. Isolated Find Prehistoric -0- DlLn-3 A. Campsite Archaic; Woodland Low DlLn-6 A. Campsite Woodland -0- DlLn-7 A. Campsite Woodland -0- DlLn-Y1 H. Uninterpreted Archaic to late Woodland Low DlLo-1 M. Fur Trade Post Historic -0- DlLo-11 A. Campsite Archaic Low DlLo-2 I. Isolated Find Prehistoric -0- DlLo-3 A. Campsite Archaic; Woodland -0- DlLo-4 A. Campsite Prehistoric Low DlLo-5 I. Isolated Find Prehistoric -0- DlLo-6 I. Isolated Find - Low DlLo-7 I. Isolated Find Prehistoric Low DlLo-9 I. Isolated Find - Low DlLp-2 F. Burial Archaic; Woodland -0- DlLp-3 A. Campsite Archaic; Woodland Low DlLp-4 F. Burial Archaic; Woodland -0- EaLn-4 E. Workshop Woodland Medium EaLn-5 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLn-6 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLn-7 A. Campsite Archaic; Woodland Low EaLn-8 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLo-1 I. Isolated Find - Low

AECOM 28/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Location Borden No. Site Type Cultural Affiliation Priority EaLo-11 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLo-12 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLo-13 D. Kill Site - Low EaLo-14 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLo-15 E. Workshop - Low EaLo-2 E. Workshop Precontact Low EaLo-3 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLo-35 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLo-39 H. Uninterpreted - Low EaLo-4 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLo-5 D. Kill Site Late Archaic; Woodland Low EaLo-6 I. Isolated Find - Low EaLo-7 A. Campsite Archaic; late Woodland Low EaLo-8 E. Workshop - Low

A review of previously recorded heritage site finds that the majority of site types recorded within the Project Region are “Isolated Finds”, a category of site identified solely on the basis of a single artifact. Isolated finds are generally found on the surface, and their discovery is often a result of anthropogenic disturbance such as cultivation or construction. Cultural affiliations are difficult to attribute to an isolated find, unless that find bears the distinctive attributes of a specific culture. None of the isolated finds in the Project Region have an assigned cultural affiliation in the HRB database. An additional 11 heritage sites within the Project Region have been recorded as “Campsites”, all of which have been subject to previous anthropogenic disturbance and have been rated as either “Low” priority, or have not been assigned a priority. An additional four sites have been identified as “Burials”. The heritage significance of these sites is obvious; however, these sites will not be impacted by the proposed project.

Of the 45 sites within the Project Region, 21 sites have not been assigned a cultural affiliation, representing 14 of the isolated find sites. An additional nine sites represent a mix of Archaic and Woodland Cultural traditions. An additional three sites have historic components.

4.6 Socio-Economic Environment

4.6.1 Land Use

The majority of the Project Region falls within the RM of Portage la Prairie. Land use in the Project Region and Project Area are governed by the Portage la Prairie Zoning By-Law No. 3096 (2015) and the Project Site is zoned as Industrial Poplar Bluff Zone (MP) as shown in Figure 09. The Project Site is currently agricultural fields.

The land immediately north of the Project Site is also zoned as MP while the land to the east, west, and north are zoned as Agricultural Limited Zone (AL). There are both commercial and industrial operations located near the Project Site; to the north is Simplot, to the northwest is Enns Brothers, and to the west is JL Agronomics.

4.6.2 Municipal Services

Emergency services, including 911, are provided by the fire department and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) servicing the City and RM of Portage la Prairie. The Portage District General Hospital, medical clinics, personal care homes, dental clinics, pharmacies, massage therapists and physiotherapist

AECOM 29/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal are health care services available to the community. The City of Portage la Prairie offers a full complement of services ranging from industrial, commercial, and recreational businesses. (Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie, 2013)

The City’s water treatment plant (WTP) treats raw Assiniboine River water. Potable water is supplied to approximately 60,000 residents in the City and RM of Portage la Prairie, Cartier Regional, and Yellow Head Regional Water Systems. The largest consumers of potable water include the City of Portage la Prairie, McCain Ltd., and Simplot (City of Portage la Prairie, 2016). The City’s Wastewater Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is located downstream from the WTP and treats municipal and industrial wastes. Wastewater from the Facility will be directed to the City’s WPCF via an on-site Wastewater Buffer Tank (as discussed in Section 2.1.2.7).

4.6.3 Population Census and Economy

According to the 2016 census, the City of Portage la Prairie had a population of 13,304 which is a 2.4% increase over the reported population of 12,996 in 2011. The approximate population of the City and RM of Portage la Prairie combined is 20,279. (Statistics Canada, 2017)

4.6.4 Indigenous Communities

The nearest Indigenous Communities to the Facility are:

. Dakota Tipi First Nation No. 295 (located approximately 3 km southeast of the Project Site); and . Long Plain First Nation No. 287 (located approximately 12 km south of the Project Site). A review of the publically available documents on the Manitoba Sustainable Development’s Public Registry did provide insight into the current and historical adjacent land use by Dakota Tipi First Nation and Long Plain First Nation. Land use information was obtained from the Dakota Tipi First Nation and Long Plain First Nation engagement summaries resulting from the Bipole III Transmission Project (Manitoba Hydro, 2015). As identified in the engagement summaries, Long Plain First Nation have historically harvested fish from nearby watercourses (mainly the Assiniboine River) and historically depended on the Assiniboine River as a primary source of water. Furthermore, the Long Plain First Nation have historically harvested botanicals for sustenance as well as for preparing traditional medicines and have hunted on the adjacent lands. From the information presented in the engagement summaries, it is possible that the lands within the Project Site were historically used by local Indigenous Communities.

4.6.5 Protected Areas

The Province operates two parks within the Project Area; the Yellow Quill Wayside Park, approximately 4 km southeast from the Project Site, and the Portage Spillway Provincial Park, approximately 4.2 km southeast from the Project Site.

The closest protected area to the Project Site is the Portage Sandhills Wildlife Management Area (WMA), located approximately 15 km south of the Project Site. The Portage Sandhills WMA is an area of sand dunes covered in mixed-grass prairie and aspen-oak forest. This WMA provides habitat for deer, grouse, coyote, and Red Fox. Some species of flora found in the WMA include Three-flowered Aven, Prairie Rose, and Hairy Golden Aster. (DSD, 2016)

The Delta Marsh WMA is second closest, located approximately 20 km north of the Project Site. This WMA is a large freshwater marsh approximately 25,000 ha in size and consists of marsh, pastures, grasslands (containing Manitoba Maple and aspen-oak forests), sand-treed areas, and deep waters. Wildlife species found in the Delta Marsh WMA include White-tailed Deer, Sharptail Grouse, Coyote, Sandhill Crane, 25 species of warblers (including Golden-winged, Black-throated Blue and Work-eating), Piping Plover, Sandpipers, White Pelican, waterfowl (including Canvasbacks, Blue-winged Teal, mallards, gadwalls), Great Blue Heron, hawks, Short-eared Owl, Great Horned Owl, swans, geese, and Leopard Frog. (DSD, 2016)

AECOM 30/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

4.6.6 Transportation

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was completed by AECOM in February 2017 and is included in Appendix F.

The Project Site is accessible from Road 65N via Simplot Road and the TransCanada Highway. Manitoba Infrastructure 2015 traffic data was obtained to determine the annual average daily traffic (AADT) for the TIS area. The closest station to the Project Site is Station 48 located 4 km east of Provincial Road 332 along the TransCanada Highway (as shown in Figure 10). Table 12 below provides the AADT for the Project Area.

Table 12. Traffic Data along the TransCanada Highway (2012 - 2015)

AADT Peak Hourly Volume Description (vehicles per day) (vehicles per hour) [1] Eastbound 6,410 641 Westbound 6,520 652 Notes: [1] Estimated based on 10% of the AADT. It was determined that the peak hourly volume (PHV) is in the range of 650 vehicles per hour (vph) based on the assumption that PHV is 10% of the AADT. However, between Station 48 and Simplot Road, there are many access points/roads that would generate traffic and change the estimated peak hourly volume.

As there is no recent traffic data available along the TransCanada Highway and Simplot Road, AECOM conducted a traffic count on January 11, 2017. This traffic count included both AM and PM peak hours. The traffic count data evaluated turning vehicles from and to Simplot Road along the TransCanada Highway.

Table 13 below provides the peak traffic counts for Simplot Road and Figure 11 provides the location of Intersection 1 and Intersection 2.

Table 13. 2017 Peak Traffic Count Turning onto Simplot Road (Vehicle/Hour)

Intersection No. Time Eastbound (EB) Westbound (WB) Northbound (NB) Southbound (SB) Direction of Traffic LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM 0 366 22 80 459 1 6 0 48 4 0 1 1 PM 0 266 10 9 280 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 AM 5 0 0 0 0 36 1 8 1 10 50 7 2 PM 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 1 23 0 0 Notes: Intersection 1 – intersection between Simplot Road and the TransCanada Highway. Intersection 2 – intersection along Simplot Road where Simplot accesses this road. LT – left turn. TH – through. RT – right turn.

AECOM 31/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

5. Community Engagement

This chapter focuses specifically on the engagement activities that were undertaken during the environmental assessment of the Portage Pea Project.

The Project was publicly announced at a Manitoba Ag Days event at the Manitoba Legislature on January 18, 2017. The Province of Manitoba, City of Portage la Prairie, the RM of Portage la Prairie, and Manitoba Hydro have been engaged throughout the planning phases of the proposed Project. Discussions with various other communities and stakeholders have been ongoing since late 2016.

The following entities were contacted regarding the Project:

Regional stakeholders:

. City of Portage la Prairie; . Manitoba Hydro; . Portage la Prairie Fire Department; . Portage Regional Economic Development Agency; . Portage la Prairie Planning District; . RCMP – Portage la Prairie Detachment; and . RM of Portage la Prairie.

Regulatory bodies: . Historic Resources Branch; . Manitoba Agriculture; . Manitoba Infrastructure; and . Manitoba Sustainable Development.

Special Interest groups: . Canadian Pacific Rail; . Dakota Tipi First Nation; . Food Development Centre; . Keystone Agricultural Producers; . Long Plain First Nation; . Manitoba Education and Training (Portage Regional Office); . Manitoba Education and Training – Post Secondary Education; . Portage la Prairie Chamber of Commerce; . Red River College; and . Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals (Manitoba Agri-Health Research Network).

Local businesses: . Simplot; . McCain; . JL Agronomics; . Enns Brothers; . Faurschou Ag Centre; . Dunn-Rite Poultry; . Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers; and . Hylife.

Landowners who may be affected by the Project were identified based on geographical criteria. 13 landowners within a 1 km radius of the Project Site were identified and treated as an additional group of stakeholders.

AECOM 32/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

5.1 Stakeholder Meetings

5.1.1 Meetings with Local Communities A letter of invitation was sent to Dakota Tipi First Nation and Long Plain First Nation to arrange an introductory meeting between Roquette and Dakota Tipi First Nation and Long Plain First Nation. A copy of these letters is provided in Appendix G.

A meeting was scheduled with Long Plain First Nation for February 1, 2017, but had to be rescheduled. Representatives from both Indigenous communities attended the Community Open House in Portage la Prairie on February 1, 2017, and provided their feedback.

The project team has been in contact with both communities and meetings have been tentatively scheduled for March 2017.

5.2 Summary of Community Open House A Community Open House for the Project was hosted by Roquette and AECOM at Stride Place in Portage la Prairie on February 1, 2017.

The Community Open House was well-attended (over 300 attendees). Of the individuals who attended, 270 signed in at the entrance.

The Community Open House was drop-in format and was designed to provide the public with an opportunity to:

. Review Project information; . Discuss the Project with project representatives from AECOM and Roquette; and . Provide their feedback and share any concerns on the proposed Project. Materials developed for the Project engagement activities were:

. A fact sheet introducing Roquette; . A Project fact sheet highlighting key aspects of the project, including location, site plan, a schematic on pea processing, a summary of the environmental components being investigated, a project timeline; and contact information for project representatives should attendees wish to contact them; . Storyboards highlighting key Project information and maps of the Project Area; and . A Feedback Form for attendees of the Community Open House. Copies of the Community Open House Storyboards and fact sheets are provided in Appendix H.

5.2.1 Community Open House Notification A variety of mediums were selected to notify interested parties about the Community Open House. Additional information on these is presented in the sections below.

5.2.1.1 Letter of Invitation

A letter of invitation to attend the Community Open House was sent to the following:

. Canadian National Railway; . Canadian Pacific Rail; . City of Portage la Prairie; . Dakota Tipi First Nation; . Enns Brothers;

AECOM 33/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

. Faurschou Ag Centre; . JL Agronomics; . Keystone Agricultural Producers; . Long Plain First Nation; . Manitoba Agriculture; . Manitoba Hydro; . Manitoba Infrastructure; . Portage la Prairie Chamber of Commerce; . Portage la Prairie Fire Department; . Portage la Prairie Planning District; . Portage Regional Economic Development Agency; . RCMP – Portage la Prairie Detachment; . RM of Portage la Prairie Council (Ward 3); and . Simplot

A letter of invitation was also sent to 13 landowners in vicinity of the proposed site.

The letter contained brief information about the proposed Project and details about the upcoming Open House. A copy of the letter is provided in Appendix G.

5.2.1.2 Newspaper Advertising

An advertisement was run in the Portage Herald Leader on January 26, 2017. This newspaper was selected based on readership in the Project Area. A copy of the newspaper advertisement can be found in Appendix I.

5.2.1.3 Stride Place Display Screen Advertising

An advertisement was posted on the display screen outside of Stride Place in the days leading up to the event. The advertisement can be found in Appendix I.

5.2.1.4 Other

In addition to the advertisement of the event by Roquette, attendees noted hearing of the open-house from other sources. These include the media event held on January 18, 2017 when the Premier of Manitoba officially announced the Project, re-runs of the newsprint ad on social media, radio advertising, and general word of mouth.

5.3 Community Open House Feedback Forms A total of 106 Feedback Forms were received from attendees of the Community Open House.

In order to protect the privacy of the attendees, we have not included copies of the completed comment sheets. A sample feedback form is provided in Appendix I. The following subsections summarize the comments received.

5.3.1 Attendee Location The first question on the Feedback Form asked attendees where they were located or lived (City of Portage la Prairie, RM of Portage la Prairie, City of Winnipeg, or other). The responses received are summarized in Table 14.

AECOM 34/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table 14. Summary of Attendee Location

Location Total Responses City of Portage la Prairie 63 RM of Portage la Prairie 26 City of Winnipeg 8 Other 9

Respondents who chose “other” were from Brandon (3), RM of North Norfolk (2), RM of Westdale Gladstone (1), East of Winnipeg (1), and Dakota Tipi First Nation (1).

5.3.2 Comments on How People Heard About the Event Attendees were asked how they heard about the Community Open House (The Portage la Prairie Herald Leader, advertising at Stride Place, The Winnipeg Free Press, word of mouth, a televised announcement, or other). The responses received are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15. Summary of How People Heard About the Event

Source Total Responses The Portage la Prairie Herald Leader 45 Advertising at Stride Place 7 The Winnipeg Free Press 6 Word of Mouth 23 Televised Announcement 13 Other 36 Note: Respondents had the option of selecting more than one answer. Attendees who chose “other” heard about the Open House from the radio (14), Portage Online (6), local government (5), letter invitation (2), Facebook (1), or other project involvement (2).

5.3.3 Comments on Project Interest Attendees were asked to best describe their interest in the Project (local resident, local farmer, local business owner, general interest, or other). The responses received are summarized in Table 16.

Table 16. Summary of Project Interest

Source Total Responses Local Resident 50 Local Farmer 18 Local Business Owner 15 General Interest 16 Other – Employment 9 Other – Business Opportunity 14 Note: Respondents had the option of selecting more than one answer.

AECOM 35/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Chart 1 provides a visual summary of the responses received.

Chart 1. Summary of Project Interest

Summary of Project Interest Other (please specify) 20%

Local resident 37% Job seeker / employment opportunities 7%

General interest 12%

Local business owner Local Farmer 13% 11% Attendees who indicated “other” described themselves as members of local government (4), realtors (2), food scientist (1), agronomist (1), and tax payer (1).

5.3.4 Comments on Quality of Information Provided Attendees were asked to rate the quality of information provided during the Community Open House. The responses received are summarized in Table 17 below.

Table 17. Summary of Quality Information

Very Very Average Comments on Quality of Information Poor Satisfactory Good Ranking [1] Poor Good (out of 5) Roquette's history, company mission, and 0 0 7 46 48 4.41 product solutions The purpose of the proposed Facility 0 1 2 31 68 4.63 The environmental studies being conducted on 0 2 7 40 46 4.37 the site in preparation for construction Notes: Four respondents skipped this question. [1] On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being very poor, 5 being very good. Chart 2 provides a visual summary of the average ranking based on the responses received.

AECOM 36/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Chart 2: Quality of Information Ranking

Average Ranking (out of 5)

The environmental studies being conducted on the site in preparation for construction

The purpose of the proposed facility

Roquette's history, company mission, and product solutions

4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 Ranked on a scale of 1-5, 1 being very poor, 5 being very good.

The two respondents who rated the quality of information about environmental studies as “poor” were concerned about heritage sites, groundwater, surface water, and land use; and groundwater and aquatic habitat. The environmental assessment section of this report (Section 6) provides additional information on these environmental components.

5.3.5 Comments on Concerns about the Project Attendees were asked if they had any concerns about the Project and given a list of concerns that they could check off. Chart 3 below summarizes the responses received.

Chart 3. Summary of Project Concerns

Summary of Project Concerns

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Note: 40 people (38% of total survey respondents) responded to this question. Respondents could choose more than one concern from the list.

AECOM 37/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Groundwater was the greatest concern to attendees with 19 responses (48% of question respondents), traffic was the second greatest concern with 17 responses (43% of question respondents), and air quality was the third greatest concern with 13 responses (33% of question respondents).

Attendees who chose “other” were concerned about:

. Heritage sites (1);

. Proximity to business (1);

. Waste water treatment (1);

. Light (1); and

. Provided more details about their traffic concerns (2).

A few attendees indicated that they would identify all of the items on the list as concerns but it seems like they are being addressed in the environmental assessment process (3).

5.3.6 Additional Comments or Feedback Attendees were asked if they had any additional comments or feedback on the project. These responses were divided into five different categories as follows:

. Support – Positive comments about the Project. . Contractor – Comments from contractors interested in pursuing work related to the Project. . Employment – Comments from people looking for job opportunities and comments related to training opportunities. . Supply/Product Chain – Comments about supply requirements and products being made at the Facility. . Other Project Inquiries - Environmental/local concerns and other general inquiries such as material sourcing, gluten-free, and land rental. The responses received are summarized in the table below. Table 18. Summary of Additional Comments or Feedback

Source Total Responses Support 27 Contractor 6 Employment 11 Supply/Product Chain 5 Other project inquiries 11 Note: 52 people responded to this question (49% of total survey respondents). Responses could be linked to more than one category.

Chart 4 provides a visual summary of responses received.

AECOM 38/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Chart 4. Summary of Additional Comments or Feedback Summary of Additional Comments or Feedback Other project inquiries 15%

Supply/Product Chain 9% Support 47%

Employment 19%

Contractor 10%

Other project inquiries can be found in the table below:

Table 19. Additional Project Inquiries

Topic Specific Inquiry/Concern More Information Available in: Environmental inquiries Increased truck traffic on Section 6.15 discusses the potential Highway 305 to avoid waiting at the impact on traffic and what mitigation lights at Highways 1 and 16. measures will be put in place to reduce that impact for local users. In addition, Roquette will be scheduling a meeting with the local residents in the area to further discuss their concerns. Heritage sites and traditional land. Section 6.13 discusses the potential impact on heritage resources and what mitigation measures have been developed to protect those resources. Noise and odour concerns. Sections 6.6 and Section 6.7 discuss the potential impact on air quality and noise and the mitigation measures that have been developed to reduce the effect on the community. Question about how the results of the The environmental assessment environmental assessment will be report will be available to view on the shared. Manitoba Department of Sustainable Development Public Registry.

AECOM 39/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Topic Specific Inquiry/Concern More Information Available in: Other Inquiries Concerns about the proximity of the Section 1 discusses the location of project to existing business. the project Real estate services. Not Applicable Feedback on the Open House venue. Not Applicable Question about local engineers and if Roquette intends to host an materials would be purchased locally. information session for potential suppliers in June 2017. With respect to employment opportunities, Roquette is in the process of developing the appropriate resourcing plan. Inquiry about a gluten free Facility. Information about Roquette’s products is available at www.roquette.com

5.4 Summary of Discussions at Community Open House The following topics were discussed at the open house with project stakeholders and are included in the table below:

Table 20. Topics of Discussion at the Open House

Topic of Discussion Question/Feedback Received More Information Available In: Transportation  Will the goods be shipped via rail?  Section 2.6 discusses  How much traffic will be generated? transportation of goods and traffic  How will this affect traffic safety? that will be generated during (Highway crossing, rail crossing, etc.) construction, operation, and decommissioning phases.  Section 6.15 discusses the effect that the project will have on existing traffic levels.  Note: In addition, Roquette will be scheduling a meeting with the local residents in the area to further discuss their concerns. Environment/Environmental  What chemicals are used in the cleaning  Sections 2.3 discusses the Assessment / processing stage? “I heard it was processing stages. Section ammonia” 2.1.2.6 discusses chemical  Concerns about water/waste water storage. treatment – specifically wet processing  Section 2.4 discusses process  Is this why the Wastewater treatment waste. plant is being upgraded?  Section 2.4.1 discusses  How do you know the project will not wastewater discharge to the City have an impact on the environment? of Portage’s Wastewater Pollution  What is AECOM’s role in this project? Control Facility under an Industrial Services Agreement between Roquette and the City. Any capacity concerns for the City will be the responsibility of the City.  Section 6, Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Measures, discusses the potential impacts the project could have on the environment and the measures that Roquette will take to protect the environment.

AECOM 40/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Topic of Discussion Question/Feedback Received More Information Available In:  AECOM is responsible for the Environmental Assessment for the proposed Facility. Employment/Contractors  When will hiring begin?  Section 2.7 discusses employee  How will Roquette be contacting us? requirements during the  How many people will be hired for construction, operation, and operations? decommissioning phases of the Project.  How many people will be hired for

construction?  A number of contractors discussed their role and potential contribution. Roquette  Where can I buy Roquette’s products?  Information about Roquette’s Do they sell any in Canada? products is available at  What are Roquette’s products used for? www.roquette.com  Where are other Roquette operations located? Roquette’s Needs for  What type of material will be used to  Section 2.8 discusses Construction build the plant? construction requirements.  How much material will be required?  Will materials be sourced locally?  What type of shipping containers will be used? Supply Chain  Does Roquette only buy peas? What  Roquette intends to host an else could I grow to sell to Roquette? information session for potential  What modifications do I have to make to suppliers in June 2017. my pea crop to make it suitable for Roquette? Support  Many stakeholders expressed support  Not Applicable and excitement for the project:  It will be good for the community / province

5.5 Portage Pea Project in the Media Following the public announcement on January 18, 2017, the Project was the subject of several media articles. A list of these articles can be found in Appendix I.

5.6 Engagement Follow-up Since the open house, Roquette has been following up with local businesses, interested parties, local landowners, and others to discuss their interest in and any concerns with the project. In particular, Roquette will be hosting a follow-up meeting with local landowners to discuss their concerns about traffic in April 2017, and a follow-up meeting for interested suppliers in June 2017. Roquette is also in the process of scheduling a meeting with Dakota Tipi First Nation and Long Plain First Nation in March/April 2017.

AECOM 41/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

6. Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Measures

6.1 Environmental and Social Components

This environmental assessment considers changes to the environment caused by the proposed Project, as well as any consequential socio-economic implications. The Environmental Components (ECs) and Social Components (SCs) were selected following the guidance provided in Manitoba Sustainable Development’s Information Bulletin (2015), “Environment Act Proposal Report Guidelines.” SCs include components of the socio-economic environment that may be affected by a change in the environment as a result of the Project.

The potential interaction between project components and ECs and SCs are identified in Table 21. Potential interactions were identified based on the professional judgement of the assessor combined with assumed implementation of standard environmentally responsible construction techniques and operating procedures in the course of project construction and operation.

6.2 Effects Assessment Methodology

Applying professional judgement and a thorough understanding of the components of the proposed Project (outlined in Section 2 of this application) and the existing environment (as described in Section 4); AECOM determined the potential physical and biological components to interact with project components (presented in Table 21). The assessment includes any effects on social components resulting from residual adverse environmental effects. The assessment also takes into account mitigation measures that have been incorporated as design aspects in the proponent’s proposed plan, as well as environmental protection practices and procedures included in the proponent’s standard of operation.

Environmental effects that may be caused as a result of accidents and malfunctions are discussed separately in Section 6.17. Definitions of the terms used to guide the effects assessment are provided in Table 22.

The following sections contain the results of the environmental assessment.

AECOM 42/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table 21: Identification of Potential Environmental/Social Component Interactions with the Project

Aquatic Cultural Physical Environment Biophysical Environment Socio-Economic Environment Environment Environment Topography Soils Groundwater Air Quality Noise Climate Surface Water Quality Aquatic Resources Flora Fauna Protected Species Heritage Resources Protected Areas Transportation Aesthetics Construction Phase

Transportation of equipment and materials to site X XXX XXX X

Stockpiling of equipment and materials at site XX XXX XXX

Additional land preparation (including grading, excavating, leveling, etc.) XX XXX XXX X X

Construction of the Facility (including buildings, silos, tanks, piping, etc.) XX XXX XXX X X

Construction of the Wastewater Emergency Lagoon XX XXX XXX X X

Construction of the Snow Management Area XX XXX XXX X X

Installation of equipment within the Facility XXX XX

Waste disposal X XXX XXX X

Site restoration X XXX XXX X X

Operation Phase

Raw Material Receiving and Sorting XX X

Pea Pre-Processing XX

Starch Processing XX

Potein Processing XX

Fiber Processing XX

Packaging, Bulk Loading, and Outbound Trucking XX X

Miscellaneous waste disposal (liquid waste, solid waste) XX XX

Maintenance (landscaping, equipment maintenance) XXX XX XX

Notes: X = identified interaction 1. only indirect interactions with SCs as a result of an direct project/EC interactions were considered

Page 43/70 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table 22. Factors and Definitions Considered in Assessing Environmental Effects

TERM DEFINITION Project Phase: Refers to the phase of the Project as construction, operation and maintenance (“operation”), or decommissioning. Potential Effect: Potential change that the proposed Project may cause the environment. Magnitude of Refers to the estimated percentage of population or resource that may be affected by Effect: activities associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Project. Where possible and practical, the population or resource base has been defined in quantitative or ordinal terms (e.g., hectares of soil types, units of habitat). Magnitude of effect has been classified as less than (<) 1%, 1% to 10%, or greater than (>) 10% of the population or resource base.

Where the magnitude of an effect was determined as virtually immeasurable and represents a non-significant change from background in the population or resource, the effect was considered Negligible. An exception to this is in terms of potential human health effects where, for example health issues due to water-borne diseases amounting to 1% of the population being affected would still be considered major. Negligible Minor Moderate Major (immeasurable) (<1%) (1 to 10%) (>10%) Direction of Effect: Refers to whether an effect on a population or a resource is considered to have a positive, adverse or neutral effect. Positive Adverse Neutral Duration of Effect: Refers to the time it takes a population or resource to recover from the effect. If quantitative information was lacking, duration was identified as short-term (<1 year), moderate term (1 to 10 years), and long term (>10 years). Short term Moderate Long term (< 1 year) (1 to 10 years) (>10 years) Frequency: Refers to the number of times an activity occurs over the Project phase, and is identified as once, rare, intermittent, or continuous. Once Rare Intermittent Continuous Scope of Effect: Refers to the spatial area potentially affected by the effect and was rated as Project Site, Project Area, or Project Region as defined in Section 3.2. Where possible, quantitative estimates of the resource affected were provided. Project Site Project Area Project Region Reversibility: Refers to the extent an adverse effect is reversible or irreversible over a 10-year period. Reversible Irreversible Residual Effect: A qualitative assessment of the residual adverse effect remaining after implementing appropriate mitigation measures. Negligible Minor Moderate Major (immeasurable) (<1%) (1 to 10%) (>10%)

AECOM 44/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

6.3 Topography

Scope of Effect: Project Site Magnitude of Effect: Major Direction of Effect: Neutral Frequency: Once Duration of Effect: Moderate Term Reversibility: Reversible

Sources of changes to site topography include activities such as clearing, levelling, excavating, and stockpiling of materials during the construction phase of the proposed Project.

The effects on topography during the construction phase of the Facility are expected to be Negligible as the Project Site will be prepared by the RM of Portage la Prairie prior to construction. Site preparation work completed by the RM of Portage la Prairie will include clearing, grading, and levelling as needed. Any additional land preparation work required during construction will include construction of the different features on the site including the Production Area, Utilities Area, Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area, and Administrative Offices Area.

Once construction of the Facility is complete, disturbed areas at the Project Site subject to surface water erosion will be re-vegetated to minimize the effects of soil erosion. All changes to topography will occur be limited to the Project Site.

6.3.1 Overall Impact to Topography

Overall, the residual impact on topography caused by the proposed Project is assessed to be Negligible. The change in topography, while permanent, will impact only features which are limited to the Project Site, and not unique to the Project Region.

6.4 Soil

6.4.1 Soil Compaction and Mixing of Soil Horizons

Scope of Effect: Project Site Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Once Duration of Effect: Moderate Term Reversibility: Reversible

As a result of incidental vehicle and heavy equipment movement, along with grading, excavating, and stockpiling of materials at the Project Site during construction, there is the potential to cause soil compaction and mixing of soil horizons, which may change the soil structure. Soil compaction also could result in changing the surface drainage patterns and reducing flora growth.

As indicated in Section 6.3, the RM of Portage la Prairie will be completing the majority of the land preparation works prior to construction. Any additional land preparation work required during construction will include construction of the different features on the site including the Production Area, Utilities Area, Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area, and Administrative Offices Area.

The effects of soil compaction and mixing of soil horizons at the Project Site is expected to be Negligible when taking into account the following mitigation measures:

. Construction equipment and vehicle movements will be limited to designated roads within and around work areas including construction laydown areas at the Project Site; . Construction activities during periods of extensive precipitation/runoff will be limited;

AECOM 45/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

. Disturbed/exposed areas will be kept to a minimum with site restoration occurring as soon as practical; and . Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated. A re-vegetation and landscaping plan will be developed a part of the detailed design engineering for the Facility.

6.4.2 Soil Erosion

Scope of Effect: Project Site Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Once Duration of Effect: Moderate Term Reversibility: Reversible

Soil may be lost during the construction phase due to erosion from wind and precipitation runoff. Conditions favourable for erosion have the potential to occur during grading, excavating, stockpiling, site restoration, and movement of heavy equipment on the Project Site. Erosion of soil and material stockpiles due to wind has the potential to cause subsequent effects on air quality (dust and particulate matter) and vegetation (dust deposition).

The effect on soil erosion during the construction phase of the Facility is expected to be Negligible when taking into account implementation of the following mitigation measures:

. Material stockpile heights will be limited; . The disturbed/exposed areas will be kept to a minimum; and . If required, dust suppression activities such as the use of an approved dust control agent and/or water will be undertaken.

6.4.3 Overall Impact to Soil

The mitigation measures listed above to minimize the impact on soil (due to soil compaction and mixing and erosion) are deemed sufficient. Therefore, the overall residual impact on soil as a result of the proposed Project is expected to be Negligible.

6.5 Groundwater

Roquette does not intend to utilize groundwater during construction or during operation of this Facility. All water required on-site will be come from the City of Portage la Prairie water supply system. Therefore, the project is not expected to impact groundwater. Any potential for impact to groundwater as a result of accidents or malfunctions is addressed in Section 6.17.

6.6 Air Quality

6.6.1 Dust

Scope of Effect: Project Area Magnitude of Effect: Minor Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Continuous Duration of Effect: Long Term Reversibility: Reversible

Dust and particulate matter have the potential to adversely affect air quality with consequent effects on human health (i.e., respiratory concerns and safety concerns related to impaired visibility on roads) and vegetation (i.e., dust deposition). Dust occurs primarily during summer and fall, with greater likelihood for

AECOM 46/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal an increase in dust during dry and windy conditions. Sources of dust include activities such as grading, excavating, vehicle movement, and stockpiling materials.

Dust may be produced during the construction phase of the proposed project (such as grading, stockpiling, transport materials and/or employees, and general use of construction equipment). The closest residential receptor to the proposed Facility is located approximately 1.3 km south and approximately 175 m from the southern property boundary. There is a treed area of approximately 75 m in width between this residence and the southern property boundary.

Construction equipment and vehicles accessing the Project Site will do so via Simplot Road. This road is currently a gravel road but will eventually be paved.

The effect of dust during construction activities is expected to be Minor when taking into account the following mitigation measures:

. Material stockpile heights will be limited; . Disturbed/exposed areas will be kept to a minimum; and . If required, dust suppression activities such as the use of an approved dust control agent and/or water will be undertaken. During operation, dust will be generated during the unloading of raw material, material drying processes, and packaging/bulk loading. There is also the potential for dust to be generated from trucks accessing the Facility via Simplot Road. The effect of dust during the operation of the Facility is expected to be Negligible for the following reasons:

. De-dusting systems installed along the various production processes will minimize dust generation to the atmosphere; and . The RM will initiate base work on Simplot Road so that in 2019 the hard top of the road can be added.

6.6.2 Exhaust Emissions

Scope of Effect: Project Region Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Continuous Duration of Effect: Long Term Reversibility: Reversible

Sources of emissions associated with the construction and operation phase of the proposed Project include: vehicles and exhausts from diesel construction equipment (general vehicle movement at the Project Site, using construction equipment for grading, placing materials, and other miscellaneous construction activities. These emissions could decrease the quality of air by increasing the local concentration of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides in the air with potential for subsequent effects on human health.

Table 4 in Section 2.8 provides the expected construction equipment required during the construction phase of the proposed Project. Some of the identified equipment include; forklifts, dozers, compactors, loaders. Emissions from these are anticipated to be limited to the Project Site and the Project Area. Construction is anticipated to take two years beginning in August 2017.

During the operation of the proposed Facility, it is expected that there will be approximately 75 trucks travelling to and from the Facility. It is also anticipated that on average, there will be 120 employee vehicles also travelling to the Facility on a daily basis. Emissions from these will be experienced in the Project Region and beyond.

AECOM 47/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

The effect of equipment and vehicle use on emissions is expected to be Negligible as a result of the implementation of the following mitigation measures:

. Vehicles and equipment will be well maintained; . Roquette will encourage carpooling or ride-sharing programs to create incentives for employees to minimize individual vehicle use; . Vehicle idling will be kept to a minimum; and . Applicable inspection procedures will be built into the construction stage environmental monitoring program.

6.6.3 Air Emissions

Scope of Effect: Project Area Magnitude of Effect: Minor Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Continuous Duration of Effect: Long Term Reversibility: Irreversible

An air dispersion model (Appendix C) was conducted to determine the proposed impacts of the Facility during operation.

Sources of air emissions from the proposed Facility include:

. Grinders; . De-dusting units; . Boilers; . Dryers; . Gas heaters; and . Other processing equipment. The proposed Facility consists of 27 proposed emission sources that were taken into account for the modelling. The air quality modelling assessment was based on maximum production and maximum equipment load rates therefore providing the worst case results. The maximum concentrations modelled are based on the Facility operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week to assess emission scenarios.

Receptor grids and discrete receptors are required to define the locations where the model will estimate concentrations. The receptor grid was designed to ensure that the model captures the maximum modelled concentrations and assess the area where the emissions may have a significant impact.

To be conservative, the 20 m receptor spacing was implemented within 250 m of the Facility boundary.

The nearest receptors to the points of impingement are residential properties and businesses surrounding the proposed Facility. There are no sensitive receptors such as schools, daycares, hospitals, community centers, or public recreation areas, as defined by Draft Guidelines for Air Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba within 5 km of the Facility boundary. Therefore, for the purposed of the air quality modelling, for reference, four discrete receptors (as shown in Figure 12) were modelled as shown in the isopleths in Appendix C.

All of the maximum concentrations for all averaging periods, for all parameters, are predicted to occur within 20 m of the Project Site. The maximum concentrations are expected to occur during the night time, under stable conditions and very light winds. Modelling results of the proposed Facility identifies that PM2.5, PM10, and 24-hour TSP maximum concentrations exceed the Maximum Acceptable Levels (MALs) as shown in Table 23. The remainder of the pollutant concentrations are all under the applicable

AECOM 48/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Maximum Tolerable Level (MTL), MAL, and Maximum Desirable Levels (MDLs). Isopleths of pollutant concentrations are included in Appendix C.

Table 23. Maximum Predicted Concentrations on Receptor Grid Maximum Modelled Maximum Averaging Concentration Pollutant Concentration % of MTL % of MAL % of MDL Period (including Location Background) Upset: 103.30 µg/m3 Upset: 543875 , Upset: 344% 5534601 PM2.5 24 hour Normal: 61.90 µg/m3 Normal: 543875 , Normal: 206% 5534601 Upset: 126.99 µg/m3 Upset: 543875 , Upset: 254% 5534601 PM 24 hour 3 10 Normal: 85.60 µg/m Normal: 543875 , Normal: 171% 5534601 Upset: 126.99 µg/m3 Upset: 543875 , Upset: 32% Upset: 106% 5534601 24 hour Normal: 85.60 µg/m3 Normal: 543875 , Normal: 21% Normal: 71% 5534601 TSP Upset:31.79 µg/m3 Upset: 543875, Upset: 45% Upset: 53% 5534601. Annual Normal: 24.92 µg/m3 Normal: 543875 , Normal: 36% Normal: 42% 5534601 3 1 hour 3.53 mg/m 543435 , 5534401 10% 24% CO 3 8 hour 1.75 mg/m 543335 , 5534441 9% 12% 29% 1 hour 126.47 µg/m3 543435 , 5534401 32% 3 NO2 24 hour 51.52 µg/m 543395 , 5534401 5% 26% 86% 3 Annual 10.89 µg/m 543875 , 5534561 11% 1 hour 69.53 µg/m3 543435 , 5534401 8% 15% 3 SO2 24 hour 10.62 µg/m 543395 , 5534401 1% 4% 7% 3 Annual 0.59 µg/m 543875 , 5534561 1% 2%

Note that NO2 was modelled at NOx and compared to the NO2 threshold. This is a conservative estimate and assumes that the entire NO fraction of NOx is converted to NO2 in the atmosphere.

All contaminants are below the MAL and MDL concentrations at the sensitive receptors.

Modelling results of the proposed project predict that PM2.5, PM10 and TSP maximum concentrations may exceed the Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria (MAAQC) in a small area immediately east of the Facility; these concentrations drop below the MAAQC within 20 m of the Project Site and remain well under at all sensitive receptors. For example, during upset conditions the model shows predicted concentrations at only 10% of the PM2.5 MAL at the nearest residence and 9% of the MAL at the Dakota Tipi First Nation.

Contributing to the predicted maximums is a high background ambient concentration of 34.5µg/m3, already making up 69% of the MAL. A full representation of the distribution of the predicted concentrations of PM2.5 is shown in the isopleth figures located in Appendix C1.

Overall, the effects on ambient air quality due to the operation of the proposed Facility are expected to be Minor when the proximity of the nearby sensitive receptors is considered.

AECOM 49/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

6.6.4 Overall Impact on Air Quality

The mitigation measures proposed above are sufficient to mitigate any adverse effects due to dust, exhaust emissions, and air emissions during the construction and operation phases. With respect to air quality during the operation stage, given that all contaminants are below the MAL and MDL concentrations at the sensitive receptors, residual effects on air quality are expected to be Minor.

6.7 Noise

Scope of Effect: Project Area Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Continuous Duration of Effect: Long Term Reversibility: Reversible

An increase in noise levels at the Project Site could potentially affect people (including contractors and employees) at the Project Site and surrounding area. An increase in noise levels could also potentially affect wildlife in the surrounding area.

Sources of noise during construction would be typical of heavy equipment such are graders, excavators, and dump trucks. The closest residence is located approximately 1.3 km south from where the proposed construction works for the Facility will be completed on the Project Site. There is also a treed area, approximately 75 m in width between this residence and the southern property boundary. This receptor is unlikely to be disturbed by everyday noise at the Project Site during construction.

Measures to mitigate noise related effects during construction on the Project Site include:

. Vehicles and equipment will be properly maintained; and . Hearing protection will be provided as required to employees and visitors. During the operation phase, sources of noise outside of the Facility include vehicle movement, trucks unloading/loading of raw material/final product, and other general equipment use on the Project Site. It is expected that there will be approximately 75 trucks travelling to and from the Facility. It is also anticipated that on average, there will be 120 employee vehicles also travelling to the Facility on a daily basis.

As part of the environmental assessment, a Noise Impact Study (NIS) was completed by AECOM (2017) and is included in Appendix D. The purpose of the NIS was to estimate the impact of noise on the proposed Facility and provide noise mitigation recommendations where necessary.

Facility noise emissions have been modelled using sound measurements, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) fan sound level predictions, manufacturer sound level data from similar projects, and noise source information provided by Roquette. The modelled outdoor noise sources from the Facility included in the NIS are as follows:

. Make-up air units; . Exhaust fans; . Loading bay doors; . Air conditioning units; . Dust collectors/de-dusters; . Trucks; . HVAC units; . Steam boilers; and

AECOM 50/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

. Dryer building noise. Where specific noise source data was not available, the general building was modelled as equally radiating noise from all surfaces of the building. This is a conservative approach and allows for production of a worst-case scenario. In reality, as the detail design progresses, and design refinements are made, noise levels can be further mitigated. The noise source information and levels used in the assessment was provided by Roquette based on Roquette’s experience at their other facilities.

The two nearest sensitive receptors (residents) used in the NIS to the proposed Facility structures are located approximately 1.2 km northeast and 1.3 km southeast as shown in Figure 13. Table 24 below provides the acoustic assessment of these two locations.

Table 24. Acoustic Assessment Summary Table - R01 and R05

One Hour L Predicted eq Change Point of Sound Level Point of One Hour L above Perceived Reception Time Period eq Basis of Reception ID Noise Level Ambient Impact Location Assessment (dBA) Level (dB) (dBA) R01_PoW Plane of Daytime 43 45 - - Window Evening 43 40 3 Low Night Time 43 40 3 Low R01_Out Outdoor Daytime 42 45 - - Evening 42 40 2 Low Night Time - - - - R05_PoW Plane of Daytime 42 45 - - Window Evening 42 40 2 Low Night Time 42 40 2 Low R05_Out Outdoor Daytime 41 45 - - Evening 41 40 1 Low Night Time - - - - Source: AECOM. Noise Impact Study - Portage Pea Project, March 2017. Overall, the impact of noise at two of the nearest noise sensitive locations (R01 and R05) is expected to be low.

To further mitigate any potential concerns related to noise, the following measures will be employed: . As the design for the Facility is being refined, special attention will be paid to enclosing all noise producing equipment inside buildings with appropriate sound proofing measures; . A Noise Management Plan will be developed to outline procedural commitments to minimizing noisy events, commitments on maintenance noise levels, complaint procedures, and noise monitoring in procedures in response to specific complaints; . During construction, vehicles and equipment will be properly maintained; . During construction, vehicle idling will be limited to avoid unnecessary noise generation at the site; and . During operation and construction, employees and contractors will be expected to abide by the Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Man Reg. 217/2006 and wear appropriate hearing protection.

AECOM 51/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

6.7.1 Overall Impact on Noise

Overall, the residual impact of noise caused by the proposed Project during construction and operations phases is expected to be Negligible.

6.8 Climate

Scope of Effect: Project Area Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Continuous Duration of Effect: Long Term Reversibility: Irreversible

Sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed Project include vehicle exhausts and exhausts from diesel construction equipment (i.e., general vehicle movement on-site, using equipment for grading, and placing materials).

During the construction phase of the proposed Project, GHG emissions are expected to be typical of construction activities. The number and types of construction equipment required for the construction of the proposed Facility are summarized in Section 2.8. Construction is anticipated to take two years beginning in August 2017. The mitigation measures identified in Section 6.6.2 will be implemented during construction.

During operation of the proposed Facility, GHG emissions will be limited to carbon dioxide (as described in Section 6.6.3). Other sources of GHG during the operation of the proposed Facility include vehicle movement, trucks unloading/loading of raw material/final product, and other general equipment use on the Project Site. It is also anticipated that on average, there will be 120 employee vehicles also travelling to the Facility on a daily basis.

The effects of GHG emissions from the proposed Project are assessed to be Negligible with the implementation of mitigation measures listed in Section 6.6.

6.8.1 Overall Impact on Climate

The mitigation measures proposed above are sufficient to mitigate any adverse effects due to GHG emissions. Residual effects on climate are therefore expected to be Negligible.

6.9 Surface Water Quality

Scope of Effect: Project Region Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Continuous Duration of Effect: Long Term Reversibility: Irreversible

As indicated in Section 2.4.1, there will be no direct wastewater discharge to nearby waterbodies.

General wastewater will go into septic tanks. The tanks will be pumped out on a regular basis, by a licensed contractor. Approximately 16,000 L/day is expected to be pumped out from these septic tanks.

Characteristics of the process wastewater expected from the Facility are provided in Table 25 (also provided in Table 2, Section 2.4.1).

AECOM 52/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table 25. Wastewater Effluent Characterization

Parameter Volume During Peak Production Flow (m3/h) 140 Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg/h) 242 Total Suspended Solids (kg/h) 163 Total Nitrogen (kg/h) 13 Total Phosphorus (kg/h) 2 Note: These values are +/- 15% and will be refined during the detailed design phase of the project.

Wastewater from the production processes will be discharged to the City of Portage la Prairie’s WPCF via a Wastewater Buffer Tank.

A Wastewater Emergency Lagoon will also be constructed adjacent to the Wastewater Buffer Tank to provide emergency storage only. Pending final design, the Snow Management Area may be designed to allow for collection of surface runoff and rainwater management. Water quality will be verified at this location. If the quality is deemed appropriate, the water will be directed into a rainwater collection ditch in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park. If the water quality is deemed to be not adequate, the water will be temporarily contained in the Snow Management Area till the quality is acceptable for discharge to the rainwater collection ditch in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park.

The effect of wastewater on surface water quality is expected to be Negligible for the following reasons:

. There is no direct discharge into any nearby waterbodies. Any wastewater produced at the Facility will be discharged to the City of Portage la Prairie’s WPCF as per license conditions (Environment Act Licence No. 2543R); . Septic tanks will be pumped out by a licensed contractor on a regular basis; . The buffer tank will allow the proponent to store, equalize, and check the quality of wastewater prior to discharging it to the City of Portage la Prairie’s WPCF; . The wastewater will be discharged from this buffer tank to the City under an Industrial Services Agreement; . In the event of a malfunction within the Facility, wastewater will be directed to the Emergency Lagoon; and . The lagoon will be connected to the Wastewater Buffer Tank and will trickle-discharge into this tank prior to discharge into the City of Portage la Prairie’s WPCF. This will prevent any overloads of wastewater to the City’s WPCF. As indicated in Section 4.2.1, the direction of surface drainage from the Project Site is northward through various drains and eventually into Lake Manitoba, located approximately 25 km north of the Project Site. To mitigate the risk of flooding, the platform level will be set at 261.3 masl, with the internal roads for vehicle movement being built at a higher elevation than the 261.3 masl, and the building built yet higher. The exact elevations will be determined during the subsequent detailed design engineering phase.

6.9.1 Overall Impact on Surface Water Quality

The mitigation measures proposed above are deemed sufficient to mitigate potential indirect effects on surface water quality. Residual effects are therefore expected to be Negligible.

6.10 Flora Species

Effects on flora include clearing and dust deposition.

AECOM 53/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

6.10.1 Clearing

Scope of Effect: Project Site Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Once Duration of Effect: Short Term Reversibility: Reversible

Site preparation work completed by the RM of Portage la Prairie will include clearing, grading, and levelling as needed prior to construction. Any additional land preparation work required during construction will include site drainage, along with the construction of the different features on the site including the Production Area, Utilities Area, Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area, and Administrative Offices Area. Once construction of the Facility is complete, disturbed areas at the Project Site will be re- vegetated to minimize the effects of soil erosion. Re-vegetation will be built into the construction plans.

6.10.2 Dust Deposition

Scope of Effect: Project Site Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Once Duration of Effect: Moderate Term Reversibility: Reversible

As noted in Section 6.6.1, dust generated during the construction and operation phases of the proposed Project can potentially affect vegetation in the area by interfering with the photosynthetic ability of the vegetation. However, assuming implementation of the mitigation measures noted in Section 6.6.1, effects on flora due to dust are expected to be Negligible.

6.10.3 Overall Impact on Flora Species

For the reasons presented above, the overall residual impact on flora species (including protected flora species) due to clearing and dust deposition is expected to be Negligible.

6.11 Fauna Species

Clearing (loss of habitat) and noise (disturbance) are potential sources of effects on fauna species. Potential species at risk are discussed in Section 6.12.

6.11.1 Loss of Habitat

Scope of Effect: Project Site Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Once Duration of Effect: Short Term Reversibility: Reversible

As indicated in Section 6.3, the Project Site will be prepared by the RM of Portage la Prairie which will include clearing, grading, and levelling as needed. Any additional land preparation work required during construction would include site drainage, along with the construction of the different features on the site including the Production Area, Utilities Area, Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area, and Administrative Offices Area. The Project Site was previously agricultural land use and is not expected to contain critical breeding habitat.

AECOM 54/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

The Project Region resides within the Prairie Pothole Bird Conservation Region which is understood to have a bird nesting season starting approximately April 15 and ending August 25 (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016). The terrestrial survey planned for spring 2017 will confirm presence or absence of active bird nests at the Project Site. Given that the project entails food processing, bird deterrents will be installed at the Project Site at areas that may be seen to potentially attract birds to minimize the risk of product contamination due to fecal matter.

6.11.2 Noise

Scope of Effect: Project Area Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Once Duration of Effect: Short Term Reversibility: Reversible

As described in Section 6.7, noise generated during construction and operation phases of the proposed Project has the potential to deter wildlife from the area. During construction and operation, noise will be generated to varying degrees as described above. At the time of the site visit on December 8, 2016, no wildlife was observed at the Project Site.

The potential impact on fauna as a result of noise is expected to be Negligible for the following reasons:

. It is anticipated that local fauna are likely already accustomed to some level of noise based on the existing activity in the area (i.e., a major highway with regular traffic, agricultural activity nearby, and operation of facilities of Simplot, and JL Agronomics); and . The Project Site is not expected to include any critical habitat as it was previously agricultural land. Therefore, measures to mitigate noise related effects during construction on the Project Site as identified in Section 6.7 will be implemented.

6.11.3 Overall Impact on Fauna

For the reasons outlined above, the residual impact (loss of habitat and noise) on fauna species is expected to be Negligible.

6.12 Protected Species

Scope of Effect: Project Area Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Once Duration of Effect: Short Term Reversibility: Reversible

As indicated in Section 4.4, there is the potential that the Chimney Swift may be found in the Portage la Prairie area, while the Silver Chub, Red-headed Woodpecker and Prairie Skink may be found within the Project Region. The Chimney Swift and Red-headed Woodpecker are protected and are also included under Article I of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, SC 1994, c 22. t.

The Assiniboine River is located approximately 3.5 km east of the proposed Facility. All process wastewater from the Facility will be treated at the City of Portage la Prairie WPCF and general wastewater will be collected in septic tanks. As there are no direct wastewater discharge into the Assiniboine River (as described in Section 6.9), the project is not expected to impact Silver Chub.

Breeding areas have been recorded in the Portage la Prairie area for Chimney Swift where the birds can find chimneys to use as nesting and resting sites. According to the Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas (2012a),

AECOM 55/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal the preferred chimneys for nesting will be brick, stucco, stone or concrete with a minimum interior diameter of 30 cm to accommodate the wingspan. These preferred chimneys were built prior to the 1960s and are found to be on schools, churches, apartment buildings, hospitals, and some commercial buildings. The breeding window for the Chimney Swift is between late May and early August in southern Manitoba.

The Red-headed Woodpecker’s range overlaps with the Project Region and they prefer a variety of habitat including grasslands, pastures, and forest edges. They excavate nests in large, dead or dying deciduous trees from 2 m to 8 m above the ground. In Manitoba, they are strongly associated with trembling aspen copses (less commonly other deciduous trees) that contain some standing snags and/or trees with dead limbs and a heavily grazed or relatively open understorey, including treed cattle lots. (Manitoba Bird Atlas, 2012b) The breeding window for the Red-headed Woodpecker is between late May and late July in southern Manitoba.

The critical habitat for the Prairie Skink consists of open native grasslands near forested areas which provide foraging, thermoregulatory, predator avoidance and overwintering habitat. This species has a strong affinity to sandy soils which permit burrowing for subsurface nesting and predator avoidance. Further, this species is often found in areas with surficial natural and non-natural cover objects which are also utilized for thermoregulation, nesting and predator avoidance (Government of Canada, 2016).

The occurrence record discovered on the Manitoba Herpetological Atlas (MHA) is on the edge of a treed corridor branching from a heavily forested area adjacent to some presumably non-agricultural grassy areas as shown by Google Earth (Figure 07). The habitat within the Project Site is notably different and is characterized as being predominately agricultural crop with a single wind row immediately to the west and a small grassy area with a few trees in the south. Further, the Project Area is also dominated with agricultural crop with more vegetated wind rows as shown on Google Earth. A geotechnical investigation was conducted as part of the proposed Project and based off the soil logs of the Project Site, it was determined that the surficial soil strata was mostly dominated by top soil and clay with some test holes indicating trace amounts of sand. As the Prairie Skink is more commonly associated with sandy soils, it is unlikely that the top soil and clay dominant surficial soils of the Project Site provide adequate habitat for this species. Given the unique critical habitat requirements of the Prairie Skink mentioned above and the current understanding of the biophysical characteristics of the Project Site it is unexpected that this species occurs within the Project Site. However, a subsequent site visit will be conducted when the snow has melted to confirm the presence or absence of the above mentioned Prairie Skink critical habitat within the Project Site.

Overall, the Project Site is not expected to provide suitable breeding habitat for the Chimney Swift and Red-headed Woodpecker and it is not anticipated to provide the unique critical habitat of the Prairie Skink. For these reasons, the potential impact of the proposed Project on protected fauna species is expected to be Negligible.

6.12.1 Overall Impact on Protected Species

For the reasons outlined above, the residual impact (loss of habitat and noise) on protected species is expected to be Negligible.

6.13 Heritage Resources

Scope of Effect: Project Site Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Rare Duration of Effect: Short Term Reversibility: Irreversible

Project activities during construction such as clearing or excavating can potentially affect heritage resources.

AECOM 56/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

A screening request to Historic Resources Branch (HRB) was sent on December 7, 2016 for the proposed Facility to determine if there are any potential heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed development and if a Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) is required. The Archaeological Unit of the HRB indicated that the Branch has some concerns with the Project and the potential to impact significant heritage resources has been deemed high in this area. Therefore, the Branch recommended that a HRIA be completed.

A review of the topography and surrounding land features indicates that although no sites have been identified at the Project Site (Figure 08), there is a potential for previously undiscovered Heritage Resources. AECOM will complete a HRIA under snow-free and frost-free and prior to any seeding activities that may be planned for the site (spring 2017). The HRIA will consist of a combination of pedestrian visual assessments and judgemental shovel test excavations. Subsurface material excavated from shovel tests will be screened through 6.3 mm mesh. Any heritage resource sites identified as a result of the HRIA will be thoroughly documented, and the extent of each site will delineated. Sufficient information will be gathered from each site to form recommendations either for additional work, or for clearance for the proposed Project under The Heritage Resources Act, CCSM c H39.1. The HRIA will be filed as a supplemental filing upon completion.

The following additional measures will be implemented during construction:

. If artifacts or historical features of skeletal remains are encountered during construction activities, work activities will stop immediately around the affected area with the find reported to the site supervisor. A qualified archaeologist would investigate and assess the find prior to continuation of work; and . If skeletal remains are encountered, the find will be immediately reported to the site supervisor and the RCMP.

6.13.1 Overall Impact on Heritage Resources

The overall impact on heritage resources due to the proposed Project will be assessed as part of the supplemental filing of a HRIA.

6.14 Protected Areas

The construction and operation of the proposed Facility is not anticipated to affect nearby protected areas. Based on the distance to the Project Site as indicated in Section 4.6.5, no effects on protected areas are anticipated from the construction and operation of the Facility.

6.15 Traffic

Scope of Effect: Project Area Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Continuous Duration of Effect: Long Term Reversibility: Reversible

With the construction and operation of the Facility, traffic will increase in the Project Site and Project Area. The Project Site is accessible from Road 65N via Simplot Road and the TransCanada Highway.

As indication in Section 2.8, various types of equipment will be required during the construction phase such as excavators (15), dozer and compactors (3), various cranes (5), and dump trucks (15). During operation, it is expected that on average a total of 223 vehicles (employee and visitor) and trucks (miscellaneous services) will be accessing the Project Site.

AECOM 57/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was completed as part of the proposed Project to determine if the proposed Facility would have an impact on the traffic in the Project Area during its operation. A copy of the TIS is included in Appendix F.

As there is no recent traffic data available next to the TransCanada Highway and Simplot Road, AECOM conducted a traffic count on January 11, 2017 that included both AM and PM peak hours as shown in Table 26. The TIS modelled the predicted 2029 traffic counts and are also incorporated into Table 26.

Table 26. Difference in Peak Traffic Count Turning onto Simplot Road (Vehicle/Hour)

Intersection Year Time Eastbound (EB) Westbound (WB) Northbound (NB) Southbound (SB) No. Direction of Traffic LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Current 0 366 22 80 459 1 6 0 48 4 0 1 1 2029 AM 0 635 87 156 818 2 45 0 97 5 0 2 % change 0 73.5 295.5 95 78.2 100 650 0 102.1 25 0 100 Current 0 266 10 9 280 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 2029 PM 0 616 73 57 590 3 54 0 64 0 0 2 % change 0 131.6 630 533.3 110.7 50 5300 0 2033 0 0 100 Current 5 0 0 0 0 36 1 8 1 10 50 7 2 2029 AM 6 0 0 0 0 54 2 75 2 64 151 66 % change 20 0 0 0 0 50 100 837.5 100 540 202 842.9 Current 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 1 23 0 0 2 2029 PM 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 105 2 32 85 0 % change 0 0 0 0 0 37.3 0 N/A 100 39.1 N/A 0 Notes: Intersection 1 – intersection between Simplot Road and the TransCanada Highway. Intersection 2 – intersection along Simplot Road where Simplot accesses this road. LT – left turn. TH – through. RT – right turn. Overall, the change in traffic flow from current conditions to modelled 2029 operation conditions will increase significantly as shown in the above table. The greatest increases are noted during PM hours at Intersection 1 and during AM hours at Intersection 2.

In regards to congestion at the two main intersections; Intersection 1 at the TransCanada Highway and Simplot Road and Intersection 2 at Simplot Road and Simplot Plant Access Road (Figure 11), the Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratio of the TIS indicate that there is adequate capacity at these intersections and are not expected to experience significant queues and delays.

The results of the capacity and Level of Service (LOS) analysis indicate that there are no capacity or LOS issues at the TransCanada Highway and Simplot Road intersection. The existing land configuration serves for the future scenario (2029) with high reserved capacity when the proposed Facility takes place. The site generated traffic from the proposed Facility will have minimal impact on the LOS of Simplot Road and Road 65N. The existing roads perform below the full capacity; therefore, no further intersection treatment is required at this time.

There is a Canadian Pacific (CP) rail crossing along Simplot Road located south of Simplot. This sign is currently a basic railway crossing sign with no warning signals or gates. It will be the RM of Portage la Prairie’s responsibility to complete all necessary road-rail grade crossing safety reviews and any improvements in order to comply with current Grade Crossing Regulations, SOR/2014-275.

AECOM 58/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

6.15.1 Overall Impact on Transportation

Overall, the increase in traffic at Intersections 1 and 2 will be significant. However, these intersections have the capacity to accommodate this increase and not result in significant queues and delays. Similarly, while the increase in traffic at Simplot Road and Road 65N is also expected to be major, both roads have the level of service to accommodate this increase. Overall, the generated traffic from the proposed Facility will have a minimal impact on the LOS of Simplot Road and Road 65N. However, given that traffic was noted to be of concern to local employees at adjacent businesses and local residents in the area, Roquette will be meeting with the landowners in the area in April 2017 to discuss their concerns.

6.16 Aesthetics

Scope of Effect: Project Site Magnitude of Effect: Negligible Direction of Effect: Adverse Frequency: Intermittent Duration of Effect: Short Term Reversibility: Reversible

Project activities during construction and operation could potentially impact the aesthetics of the Project Site. The Project Site was previously agricultural land and once construction is complete, it will contain a Facility (including on-site parking areas and roadways, Emergency Lagoon, and Snow Management Area) occupying approximately 13 ha of land. This potential impact is assessed to be Negligible for the following reasons:

. The Project Site will be inspected on a regular basis for loose waste and debris in order to maintain a clean site; and . Waste and debris will be stored in bins and removed from the Project Site on a regular basis.

6.16.1 Overall Impact on Aesthetics

Overall, the residual impact on aesthetics caused by the proposed Project is assessed to be Negligible.

6.17 Accidents and Malfunctions

To prevent accidents and malfunctions, all phases of the proposed Project will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The following sections provide additional details on precautionary measures that will be implemented by Roquette to further minimize the potential for accidents and malfunctions to occur.

6.17.1 Worker Health and Safety

Worker protection in Manitoba is regulated through standards, procedures, and training under the Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Man Reg 217/2006. Safety equipment and personal protective equipment are supplied to employees and workers. All contractors and visitors will be subject to site specific environmental health and safety orientation for the construction and operation phase of the Project.

6.17.2 Spills

Environmental effects may occur due to fuel and chemical spills from diesel fuel, lubricants, oils, and hydraulic fluids. An accidental release of hazardous materials and/or equipment fluids could occur from improper storage and handling procedures. Accidental releases have the potential to affect air, surface water, groundwater, and soils, with consequential effects on vegetation, aquatic resources, and possible human health and safety.

AECOM 59/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

The following standard procedures will be employed to prevent spills from occurring during Project activities:

. Any diesel tanks used on-site will be self-contained aboveground storage tank(s). . When servicing requires drainage or pumping of lubricating oils or other fuels from equipment, a groundsheet of suitable material and size will be spread on the ground to catch all fluid in the event of a leak or spill. An adequate supply of suitable absorbent material and any other supplies and equipment necessary to immediately clean up spills will also be available. . Storage and disposal of liquid wastes and filters from equipment maintenance, and any residual material from spill clean-up will be contained in an environmentally safe manner and in accordance with any existing regulations. . Waste oils, fuels, and hazardous wastes (if any) will be handled in a safe manner. Staff will be required to transport, store, and handle all such substances as recommended by the suppliers and/or manufacturers and in compliance with applicable Federal, Provincial, and Municipal regulations. Manitoba Sustainable Development will be notified immediately if a reportable spill occurs. . Fuels, oils, or other hazardous materials will be stored only in designated areas. . Storage sites will be inspected periodically for compliance. . Personnel on-site will be trained in how to deal with spills, including knowledge of how to properly deploy site spill kit materials. . Service and repairs of equipment shall only be performed by trained personnel. . Vehicles and equipment will be maintained to minimize leaks. Regular inspections of hydraulic fuel systems on machinery will be completed on a routine basis; when detected, leaks will be repaired immediately. . Roquette will ensure that fuel and chemical handlers are trained and qualified, and that appropriate emergency response measures are in place and readily available. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures as necessary and assuming the implementation of safe work practices, the risk of spill is considered to be appropriately mitigated.

6.17.3 Fire and Explosions

The presence of mechanical equipment, fuels, and other hazardous materials creates a potential for fires and explosions. Such incidents can harm on-site personnel, cause equipment damage, and lead to a release of contaminants, resulting in consequent effects to other environmental components (air, surface water, groundwater, flora, fauna, aquatic resources, and aesthetics). Potential socio-economic effects may occur if a Facility shut-down is required in the event of a large accident (such as incidents that may require evacuation, disruption of traffic, etc.).

All precautions necessary will be taken to prevent fire hazards at the Project Site; including but not limited to:

. All flammable waste will be removed on a regular basis and disposed of at an appropriate disposal site. . Appropriate fire extinguisher(s) will be available on the Project Site. Such equipment will comply with and be maintained to the manufacturers’ standards. . Storage and use of hazardous materials, including flammable waste, will be in compliance with regulatory requirements. . All on-site fire prevention/response equipment will be checked on a routine basis, in accordance with local fire safety regulations, to ensure the equipment is in proper working order at all times.

AECOM 60/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

. Greasy or oily rags or materials subject to spontaneous combustion are deposited and stored in appropriate receptacles. This material will be removed from the Project Site on a regular basis and be disposed of at an appropriate waste disposal facility. . Smoking will be restricted to designated areas. With the measures outlined above, and assuming implementation of typical safe work practices, the risk of fires and explosions is assessed to be appropriately mitigated.

6.17.4 Transportation Accidents

An increase in traffic has the potential to increase the likelihood for transportation accidents. Transportation accidents can consequently result in release of pollutants in the environment (diesel, oils, etc.), or materials that the vehicles colliding are transporting (construction wastes, cement, chemicals, etc.). Such accidental releases to the environment could potentially result in secondary effects on other environmental components (groundwater contamination through seepage, decline in surface water quality through runoff) or tertiary effects on flora (decline of growth potential due to soil contamination), fauna, aquatic resources, and human health. Potential socio-economic effects may occur if road shutdowns are required in the event of a large accident (traffic interruption could disrupt business and activity if people are not able to commute to work).

The following measures will be employed to reduce the risk of transportation accidents:

. The traffic flow around the Facility (loading/unloading of raw material/final products, deliveries, and pick-ups) has been designed to mitigate potential accidents/traffic back-up entering the Facility. . A site speed limit of 20 km/hour or lower will be posted throughout the Facility to minimize the potential for on-site transportation accidents. . Any on-site transportation accidents resulting in spills will be managed in accordance with Roquette’s site-specific environmental management procedures. . Personnel retained to drive and operate vehicles will have a valid Manitoba Driver’s License with a copy provided to Roquette personnel. . Speed limits on access roads, local road, and Provincial Highways will continue to be implemented. Signage and speed limits on the TransCanada Highway and Simplot Road are regulated by the Province of Manitoba. The above noted mitigation measures are assessed to mitigate the potential risk for transportation accidents during all phases of the Project.

6.18 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures

The potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project are considered Negligible, as described in the previous sections of this chapter. Table 27 summarizes potential environmental effects of the Project and the design features, standard operating procedures, and other mitigation measures that will be implemented.

Table 28 summarizes potential accidents and malfunctions and measures to reduce the risk of such occurrences.

AECOM 61/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table 27 - Effects Characterization and Summary of Mitigation Measures

Scope Magnitude Direction Frequency Duration Reversibility Environmental & Social Project Phase Effect Mitigation Measures Overall Effect Component Project Project Project Minor Moderate Major Short Term Moderate (1- Long Term Negligible Positive Adverse Neutral Once Rare Intermittent Continuous Reversible Irreversible Site Area Region (<1%) (1-10%) (>10%) (<1 yr) 10 yrs) (>10 yrs) Topography Construction Change in Topography Project Site Major Neutral Once Moderate Term Reversible - Disturbed areas at the Project Site subject to surface water erosion will be re-vegetated. Negligible - Construction equipment and vehicle movments will be limited to designated roads within and around work areas including construction laydown areas at the Project Site.

- Construction activities during periods of extensive precipiitation/runoff will be limited. Soil Compaction & Mixing of Soil Project Site Negligible Adverse Once Moderate Term Reversible Negligible Horizons - Disturbed/exposed areas will be kept to a minimum with site restoration occurring as soon as practical. - Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated, as required. A re-vegetation and landscaping plan will be Soil Construction developed as part of the detailed design engineering for the Facility. - Material stockpile heights will be limited.

Soil Erosion Project Site Negligible Adverse Once Moderate Term Reversible - Disturbed/exposed areas will be kept to a minimum. Negligible

- If required, dust supression activities such as the use of an approved dust control agent and/or water will be undertaken.

- Material stockpile heights will be limited.

Construction - Disturbed/exposed areas will be kept to a minimum. - If required, dust supression activities such as the use of an approved dust control agent and/or Dust Project Area Minor Adverse Continuous Long Term Reversible water will be undertaken. Negligible - De-dusting systems installed along the various production processes will minimize dust generation to the atmosphere. Operation - To minimize dust along Simplot Road, the RM will initiate base work so that in 2019, the hard top of the road can be added. Air Quality - Vehicle and equipment will be well maintained. Construction - Vehicle idling will be kept to a minimum. Exhaust Emissions Project Region Negligible Adverse Continuous Long Term Reversible Negligible - Applicable inspection procedures will be built into the construction stage environmental monitoring program. Operation - Roquette will encourage carpooling or ride-sharing programs to create incentives for employees to minimize individual vehicle use - All emission sources will include emission reducing equipment/machinery as part of the overall Operation Air Emissions Project Area Minor Adverse Continuous Long Term Irreversible Minor design.

- Vehicle and equipment will be properly maintained.

- Hearing protection will be provided as required to employees and visitors.

- As the design for the Facility is being refined, special attention will be paid to enclosing all noise producing equipment inside buildings with appropriate sound proofing measures. - A Noise Management Plan will be developed to outline procedural commitments to minimizing Noise Construction & Operation Increased Noise Project Area Negligible Adverse Continuous Long Term Reversible noisy events, commitments on maintenance noise levels, complaint procedures, and noise Negligible monitoring procedures in response to specific complaints.

- During construction, vehicles and equipment will be properly maintained.

- During construction, vehicle idling will be limited to avoid unneccessary noise generation at the site. - Employees and contractors will be expected to abide by the Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Man Reg. 217/2006 and wear appropriate hearing protection.

- Vehicle and equipment will be well maintained.

- Vehicle idling will be kept to a minimum.

- Applicable inspection procedures will be built into the construction stage environmental monitoring Climate Construction & Operation GHG Emissions Project Area Negligible Adverse Continuous Long Term Irreversible Negligible program. - Roquette will encourage carpooling or ride-sharing programs to create incentives for employees to minimize individual vehicle use - All emission sources will include emission reducing equipment/machinery as part of the overall design.

Page 62/70 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Scope Magnitude Direction Frequency Duration Reversibility Environmental & Social Project Phase Effect Mitigation Measures Overall Effect Component Project Project Project Minor Moderate Major Short Term Moderate (1- Long Term Negligible Positive Adverse Neutral Once Rare Intermittent Continuous Reversible Irreversible Site Area Region (<1%) (1-10%) (>10%) (<1 yr) 10 yrs) (>10 yrs)

- Septic tanks will be pumped out by s licensed contractor on a regular basis.

- There is no direct discharge into any nearby waterbodies. Any wastewater produced at the Facility will be discharged to the City of Portage la Prairie's WPCF as per license conditions (Environment Act licence No. 2543R). - The buffer tank will allow the proponent to store, equalize, and check the quality of wastewater prior to discharging it to the City of Portage la Prairie's WPCF. Surface Water Operation Quality Project Region Neglgible Adverse Continuous Long Term Irreversible Negligible - The wastewater will be discharged from the buffer tank to the City under an Industrial Services Agreement. - In the event of a malfunction within the Facility, wastewater will be directed to the Emergency Lagoon. - The lagoon will be connected to the Wastewater Buffer Tank and will trickle-discharge into this tank prior to discharge into the City's WPCF. This will prevent any overloads of wastewater to the City's WPCF. - Once construction of the Facility is complete, disturbed areas at the Project Site will be re- Construction Clearing Project Site Negligible Adverse Once Short Term Reversible vegetated to minimize the effects of soil erosion. Re-vegetation will be built into the construction Negligible plans.

- Material stockpile heights will be limited.

- Disturbed/exposed areas will be kept to a minimum.

Flora - If required, dust supression activities such as the use of an approved dust control agent and/or water will be undertaken. Construction & Operation Dust Deposition Project Site Negligible Adverse Once Moderate Term Reversible Negligible - De-dusting systems installed along the various production processes will minimize dust generation to the atmosphere.

- To minimize dust along Simplot Road, the RM will initiate base work so that in 2019, the hard top of the road can be added.

- Terrestrial survey planned for spring 2017 will confirm the presence or absence of active bird nests and appropriate mitigation determined at that time. Construction Loss of Habitat Project Site Negligible Adverse Once Short Term Reversible - Given that the project entails food processing, bird deterrents will be installed at the Project Site at areas that may be seen to potentially attract birds to minimize the risk of product contamination due to fecal matter.

- Vehicle and equipment will be properly maintained.

- Hearing protection will be provided as required to employees and visitors.

- As the design for the Facility is being refined, special attention will be paid to enclosing all noise producing equipment inside buildings with appropriate sound proofing measures.

- A Noise Management Plan will be developed to outline procedural commitments to minimizing Fauna Negligible noisy events, commitments on maintenance noise levels, complaint procedures, and noise monitoring procedures in response to specific complaints. Construction & Operation Noise Project Area Negligible Adverse Once Short Term Reversible - During construction, vehicles and equipment will be properly maintained.

- During construction, vehicle idling will be limited to avoid unneccessary noise generation at the site.

- Employees and contractors will be expected to abide by the Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Man Reg. 217/2006 and wear appropriate hearing protection.

- It is anticipated that local fauna are likely accustomed to some level of noise based on the existing activity in the area.

- The Project Site is not expected to include any critical habitat as it was previously agricultural land.

- Terrestrial survey planned for spring 2017 will confirm the presence or absence of critical habitat for Prairie Skink and Red-headed Woodpecker; mitigation measures will be determined at that time should they be required. Protected Species Construction Loss of Habitat Project Area Negligible Adverse Once Short Term Reversible Negligible - The Project Site is not expected to provide suitable breeding habitat for the Chimney Swift and Red-headed Woodpecker and it is not expected to provide the unique critical habitat of the Prairie Skink. - AECOM will complete a Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) under snow-free and frost-free conditions, and prior to any seeding activities that may be planned for site (spring 2017). The HRIA will consist of a combination of pedestrian visual assessments and judgemental shovel test excavations. - If artifacts or historical features of skeletal remains are encountered during construction activities, Heritage Resources Construction Chance Finds Project Site Negligible Adverse Rare Short Term Irreversible To Be Determined work activities will stop immediately around the affected area with the find reported to the site supervisor. A qualified archaeologist would investigate and assess the find prior to continuation of work. - If skeletal remains are encountered, the find will be immediately reported to the site supervisor and the RCMP. - Roquette will be meeting with the landowners in the area in April 2017 to dicuss their concerns Transportation Construction & Operation Increased Traffic Project Area Negligible Adverse Continuous Long Term Reversible Negligible regarding traffic. - The Project Site will be inspected on a regular basis for loose waste and debris in order to maintain a clean site Aesthetics Construction & Operation Aesthetics Project Site Negligible Adverse Intermittent Short Term Reversible Negligible - Waste and debris will be stored in bins and removed from the Project Site on a regular basis.

Page 63/70 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Table 28 - Summary of Mitigation Measures to Minimize the Risk of Occurence of Accidents and Malfunctions

Accident & Malfunctions Mitigation Measures Risk of Occurence

- Workers will have received Workplace Safety and Health Regulation training as per provincial standards. - Safety equipment and personal protective equipment are supplied to employees and workers General Rare - All contractors and visitors will be subject to site specific environmental health and safety orientation for the construction and operation phase of the Project. - Any diesel tanks used on-site will be self-contained aboveground storage tank(s). - When servicing requires drainage or pumping of lubricating oils or other fuels from equipment, a groundsheet of suitable material and size will be spread on the ground to catch all fluid in the event of a leak or spill. An adequate supply of suitable absorbent material and any other supplies and equipment necessary to immediately clean up spills will also be available. - Storage and disposal of liquid wastes and filters from equipment maintenance, and any residual material from spill clean-up will be contained in an environmentally safe manner and in accordance with any existing regulations. - Waste oils, fuels, and hazardous wastes (if any) will be handled in a safe manner. Staff will be required to transport, store, and handle all such substances as recommended by the suppliers and/or manufacturers and in compliance with applicable Federal, Provincial, and Municipal regulations. Manitoba Sustainable Development will Spills Rare be notified immediately if a reportable spill occurs. - Fuels, oils, or other hazardous materials will be stored only in designated areas. - Storage sites will be inspected periodically for compliance. - Personnel on-site will be trained in how to deal with spills, including knowledge of how to properly deploy site spill kit materials. - Service and repairs of equipment shall only be performed by trained personnel. - Vehicles and equipment will be maintained to minimize leaks. Regular inspections of hydraulic fuel systems on machinery will be completed on a routine basis; when detected, leaks will be repaired immediately. - Roquette will ensure that fuel and chemical handlers are trained and qualified, and that appropriate emergency response measures are in place and readily available. - All flammable waste will be removed on a regular basis and disposed of at an appropriate disposal site. - Appropriate fire extinguisher(s) will be available on the Project Site. Such equipment will comply with and be maintained to, the manufacturers’ standards. - Storage and use of hazardous materials, including flammable waste, will be in compliance with regulatory requirements. Fire and Explosions - All on-site fire prevention/response equipment will be checked on a routine basis, in accordance with local fire Rare safety regulations, to ensure the equipment is in proper working order at all times. - Greasy or oily rags or materials subject to spontaneous combustion are deposited and stored in appropriate receptacles. This material will be removed from the Project Site on a regular basis and be disposed of at an appropriate waste disposal facility. - Smoking will be restricted to designated areas. - The traffic flow around the Facility (loading/unloading of raw material/final products, deliveries, and pick-ups) has been designed to mitigate potential accidents/traffic back-up entering the Facility. - A site speed limit of 20 km/hour or lower will be posted throughout the Facility to minimize the potential for on-site transportation accidents. - Any on-site transportation accidents resulting in spills will be managed in accordance with Roquette’s site-specific Transportation Accidents environmental management procedures. Rare - Personnel retained to drive and operate vehicles will have a valid Manitoba Driver’s License with a copy provided to Roquette personnel. - Speed limits on access roads, local road, and Provincial Highways will continue to be implemented. Signage and speed limits on the TransCanada Highway and Simplot Road are regulated by the Province of Manitoba.

Page 64/70 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

7. Conclusions

The environmental effects of the proposed Facility have been assessed as follows:

Topography

The effects on topography during the construction phase of the Facility are expected to be Negligible as the Project Site will be prepared by the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie prior to construction. Site preparation work completed by the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie will include clearing, grading, and levelling as needed. Any additional land preparation work required during construction will include construction of the different features on the site including the Production Area, Utilities Area, Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area, and Administrative Offices Area. Therefore, the residual impact on topography caused by the proposed Project is assessed to be Negligible.

Soil

With respect to soil compaction, mixing, and erosion during construction, the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this assessed are expected to mitigate any potential soil compaction/mixing and erosion effects. Therefore, it is anticipated that the residual effect on soil is expected to be Negligible.

Groundwater

Roquette does not intend to utilize groundwater during construction or during operation of this Facility. All water required on-site will be come from the City of Portage la Prairie water supply system. Therefore, the project is not expected to impact groundwater.

Air Quality

With the implementation of the mitigation measures noted in the assessment while carrying out construction activities the effect of dust during construction and operation is expected to be Negligible to Minor.

In regards to exhaust emissions, equipment to be used during construction includes: forklifts, dozers, compactors, loaders. During operation, it is expected that there will be approximately 75 trucks travelling to and from the Facility. It is also anticipated that on average, there will be 120 employee vehicles also travelling to the Facility on a daily basis. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this assessment such as encouraging carpooling, limiting vehicle idling, and keeping vehicles well- maintained, the effects of exhaust emissions during construction and operation are expected to be Negligible.

An air dispersion model was conducted to determine the proposed impacts of the Facility during operation. Overall, there are not expected to be any significant impacts to ambient air quality from the proposed Facility given the location of the proposed Facility and the absence of sensitive receptors. Modelling results of the proposed project predict that PM2.5, PM10 and TSP maximum concentrations may exceed the Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria (MAAQC) in a small area immediately east of the Facility; these concentrations drop below the MAAQC within 20 m of the Facility and remain well under at all sensitive receptors. The effects on ambient air quality due to the operation of the proposed Facility are expected to be Minor when the proximity of the nearby sensitive receptors is considered.

Noise

With respect to noise during construction and operation (vehicle movement on the Project Site), the noise levels at the Project Site are not expected to be high enough to cause significant disturbance in the Project Area. With the implementation of the measures such as providing hearing protection to employees and visitors as required and properly maintaining vehicles and equipment are expected to appropriately mitigate potential adverse effects.

AECOM 65/70 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

A Noise Impact Study was completed as a part of this assessment. The purpose of this study was to estimate the noise impact of the proposed Facility based on the project design and provide noise mitigation recommendations where necessary. The impact of noise at two of the nearest noise sensitive locations is expected to be low. A Noise Management Plan will be developed to outline procedural commitments to minimizing noisy events, commitments on noise levels for maintenance activities, complaint procedures, and noise monitoring procedures in response to specific complaints Climate

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed Project include vehicle exhausts and exhausts from diesel construction equipment (i.e., general vehicle movement on-site, using equipment for grading, and placing materials). With the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this assessment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (minimizing idling, keeping vehicles well-maintained, encouraging carpooling, and periodic inspections), the residual effects on climate are therefore expected to be Negligible.

Surface Water Quality

Surface drainage from the Project Site flows northward through various drains and eventually drains into Lake Manitoba, located approximately 25 km north of the Project Site. There will be no direct wastewater discharge from the proposed Facility into any nearby waterbodies. Wastewater from the production processes will be discharged to the City of Portage la Prairie’s Wastewater Pollution Control Facility for further processing.

Flora Species

As indicated in this report, the site preparation work completed by the RM of Portage la Prairie will include clearing, grading, and levelling as needed. Any additional land preparation work required during construction will include site drainage, along with the construction of the different features on the site including the Production Area, Utilities Area, Packaging and Outbound Trucking Area, and Administrative Offices Area. Once construction is complete, the site will be re-vegetated and landscaped.

Fauna Species

The Project Site was previously used as agricultural land and is not expected to contain critical breeding habitat. The terrestrial survey planned for spring 2017 will confirm presence or absence of bird nests at the Project Site and appropriate mitigation determined at that time.

With respect to noise, it is anticipated that local fauna are likely already accustomed to some level of noise based on the existing activity in the area. The mitigation measures proposed in this assessment are expected to mitigate any potential effects on wildlife due to noise. Given that the project entails food processing, bird deterrents will be installed at the Project Site at areas that may be seen to potentially attract birds to minimize the risk of product contamination due to fecal matter.

Protected Species

There is the potential that the Chimney Swift may be found in the Portage la Prairie area, while the Silver Chub, Red-headed Woodpecker and Prairie Skink may be found within the Project Region. As the project is not expected to impact surface water, the project is not expected to impact Silver Chub.

The Project Site is not expected to provide suitable breeding habitat for the Chimney Swift and Red- headed Woodpecker and it is not anticipated to provide the unique critical habitat of the Prairie Skink. For these reasons, the potential impact of the proposed Project on protected fauna species is expected to be Negligible.

Heritage Resources

A screening request to Historic Resources Branch (HRB) was sent on December 7, 2016 for the proposed Facility to determine if there are any potential heritage resources that may be affected by the proposed development and if a Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) is required. The

AECOM 66/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Archaeological Unit of the HRB indicated that the Branch has some concerns with the Project and the potential to impact significant heritage resources has been deemed high in this area. Therefore, the Branch recommended that a HRIA be completed.

AECOM will complete a HRIA under snow-free and frost-free conditions this spring (2017). Any heritage resource sites identified as a result of the HRIA will be documented, and the extent of each site will delineated. Sufficient information will be gathered from each site to form recommendations either for additional work, or for clearance for the proposed Project under The Heritage Resources Act, CCSM c H39.1. The HRIA will be filed as a supplemental filing upon completion.

Protected Areas

Based on the distance from the Project site, construction and operation of the proposed Facility is not anticipated to affect nearby protected areas

Traffic

The increase in traffic at Intersections 1 and 2 will be significant. However, these intersections have the capacity to accommodate this increase and not result in significant queues and delays. Similarly, while the increase in traffic at Simplot Road and Road 65N is also expected to be major, both roads have the level of service to accommodate this increase. Overall, the generated traffic from the proposed Facility will have a minimal impact on the LOS of Simplot Road and Road 65N. However, given that traffic was noted to be of concern to local employees at adjacent businesses and local residents in the area, Roquette will be meeting with the landowners in the area in April 2017 to discuss their concerns.

Aesthetics

During construction, good housekeeping practices will be implemented at the Project Site including inspecting the Project Site on a regular basis for loose waste and debris and storing waste and debris in proper bins prior to removal from the site. Therefore, the overall residual impact on aesthetics caused by the proposed Project is assessed to be Negligible.

Community Engagement

The Project was publicly announced at the Manitoba Legislature on January 18, 2017. Discussions with various communities and stakeholders have been ongoing since late 2016. Roquette also held a public open house on February 1, 2017 in the City of Portage la Prairie. Since the open house, Roquette has been following up with local businesses, interested parties, local landowners, and others to discuss their interest in and any concerns with the project. In particular, Roquette will be hosting a follow-up meeting with local landowners to discuss their concerns about traffic in April 2017, and a follow-up meeting for interested suppliers in June 2017. Roquette is also in the process of scheduling a meeting with Dakota Tipi First Nation and Long Plain First Nation in March/April 2017.

Conclusion Summary

Considering the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures identified in this report, along with Roquette’s best management practices, and taking into consideration the design features of the proposed Facility, the adverse effects of the proposed Project are expected to be Negligible to Minor in magnitude, with positive economic benefits to the province of Manitoba.

AECOM 67/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

8. References

Bird Studies Canada. 2014. Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas. Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas website: http://www.birdatlas.mb.ca/index_en.jsp (accessed Feb 23, 2017).

Boyd, M. 2000. Late Quaternary Geoarchaeology of the Lauder Sandhills, Southwestern Manitoba, Canada. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calgary, p. 300.

Canada Land Inventory (CLI). 1966. Soil Capability for Agriculture (Brandon 62G). Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada Website: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/maps/cli/250k/agr/index.html (accessed December 1, 2016).

City of Portage la Prairie. March 2016. Public Water System 2015 Annual Report. City of Portage la Prairie Website: http://www.city-plap.com/main/watertreatment/ (accessed December 2, 2016)

COSEWIC. 2011. Wildlife Species Search: Peregrine Falcon. Government of Canada Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=995&StartRow=1&boxStatus=All&boxTaxonomi c=All&location=All&change=All&board=All&commonName=peregrine%20falcon&scienceName=&returnFl ag=0&Page=1 (accessed May 13, 2015)

COSEWIC. 2007. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) in Canada.

Department of Sustainable Development (DSD). 2016. Wildlife Management Areas. Department of Sustainable Development Website: http://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/wildlife/habcons/wmas/gMap/ (accessed December 2, 2016).

Department of Sustainable Development (DSD), Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. 2013. Occurrence of Species by Ecoregion – Aspen Parkland. Department of Sustainable Development Website: http://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/cdc/ecoreg/lakembplain.html (accessed December 2, 2016).

Ehrlich, W. A., E. A. Poyser and L. E. Pratt. 1957. Report of Reconnaissance Soil Survey of Carberry Map Sheets Area – Soils Report No. 7. Manitoba Soil Survey.

Environment Canada. April 19, 2016a. Canadian Climate Normals 1981-2010 Station Data – Portage la Prairie CDA, Manitoba, Government of Canada Website: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html (accessed December 1, 2016).

Environment Canada. April 19, 2016b. Canadian Climate Normals 1981-2010 Station Data - Brandon A, Manitoba, Government of Canada Website: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html (accessed December 1, 2016).

Environment and Climate Change Canada. May 19, 2016. General Nesting Periods of Migratory Birds in Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada Website: https://www.ec.gc.ca/paom- itmb/default.asp?lang=En&n=4F39A78F-1#_fig01 (accessed February 24, 2017).

Geological Survey of Canada, Manitoba Minerals Division. 1987. Geological Highway Map of Manitoba.

Government of Canada. 2016. Recovery Strategy for the Prairie Skink (Plestiodon septentrionalis) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Government of Canada Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca (accessed February 23, 2017).

Graham, J. 2005. Blackduck Settlement in south-western Manitoba: Land Use and Site Selection. Master’s thesis. University of Manitoba, Natural Resources Institute. Winnipeg

Graham, J. and B. Nicholson. 2003. Archaeological Investigations at the Sarah and Crepeele Sites, Southwestern Manitoba, 2003. Historic Resources Branch. Winnipeg.

AECOM 68/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Graham, J., and G. L. Running IV. 2003. Ecological Complexity in Southwestern Manitoba. Presented at the Prairie Division of the Canadian Association of Geographers, Gimli, September

Groundwater Information Network (GIN). 2014. Advanced Map Viewer with 3D. Groundwater Information Network Website: http://gin.gw-info.net/service/api_ngwds:gin2/en/gin.html (accessed December 1, 2016).

Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas. 2014. Sprague’s Pipit, Breeding Evidence. Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas Website: http://www.birdatlas.mb.ca/mbdata/maps.jsp?lang=en (accessed December 12, 2016).

Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas. 2012a. Chimney Swift. Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas Website: http://www.birdatlas.mb.ca/speciesatrisk/Species/ChimneySwift/species.htm (accessed January 31, 2017).

Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas. 2012b. Red-headed Woodpecker. Manitoba Breeding Bird Atlas Website: http://www.birdatlas.mb.ca/speciesatrisk/Species/RedheadedWoodpecker/species.htm (accessed January 31, 2017).

Manitoba Herpetological Atlas. 2017. Online Interactive Database (Public Version) Website: http://naturenorth.com/Herps/MHA_Data.html (accessed February 23, 2017).

Manitoba Hydro. February 5, 2015. Letter: Re: Bipole III Transmission Project (Licence 3055) – Licence Conditions #4f. http://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/eal/registries/5433bipole/april10_2015/condition4_s1s2submission_letter.pdf (accessed February 27, 2017).

Matile, G.L.D. and G.R. Keller. 2004. Surficial geology of the Brandon map sheet (NTS 62G), Manitoba; Manitoba Industry, Economic Development and Mines, Manitoba Geological Survey, Surficial Geology Compilation Map Series, SG-62G, scale 1:250 000.

Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, SC 1994, c 22, http://canlii.ca/t/kzkt (accessed February 21, 2017).

Milani, D.W. 2013. Fish community and fish habitat inventory of streams and constructed drains throughout agricultural areas of Manitoba (2002-2006). Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1247: xvi + 6,153 p.

Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information. 1999. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. Etopo, 62G16, Edition 5, UTM Zone 14.

Peterson, R.T, H.H. Harrison and M. Harrison. 2001. A Field Guide to Western Birds’ Nests. Houghton Miffin Company, New York NY. 113pp.

Ray, A. J. 1974. Indians in the Fur Trade. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Rural Municipality (RM) of Portage la Prairie. April 14, 2015. The Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie By-Law No. 3096.

Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie. 2013. Living Here. Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie Website: http://www.rmofportage.ca/main.asp?cat_ID=2 (accessed February 21, 2017).

Rutulis, M. 1986a. Province of Manitoba, Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Branch, Aquifer Maps of Southern Manitoba, Map 1 of 2, Bedrock Aquifers.

Rutulis, M. 1986b. Province of Manitoba, Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Branch, Aquifer Maps of Southern Manitoba, Map 2 of 2, Sand Aquifers.

Smith, R.E., H. Veldhuis, G.F. Mills, R.G. Eilers, W.R. Fraser, and G.W. Lelyk. 1998. Terrestrial Ecozones, Ecoregions, and Ecodistricts, An Ecological Stratification of Manitoba’s Natural Landscapes.

Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, C29, http://canlii.ca/t/52g8q (accessed February 21, 2017).

AECOM 69/70

Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Statistics Canada. 2017. Portage la Prairie, CY [Census subdivision], Manitoba and Division No. 9, CDR [Census division], Manitoba (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98- 316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released February 8, 2017. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed February 21, 2017).

Stewart, K.W. and D.A. Watkinson. 2004. The Freshwater Fishes of Manitoba. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg MB. 276 pp.

Syms, E. L. 1977. Cultural Ecology and Ecological Dynamics of the Ceramic Period in South-western Manitoba. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 12.

The Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, CCSM c E111, http://canlii.ca/t/52ktn (accessed February 21, 2017).

The Environment Act, CCSM c E125, http://canlii.ca/t/52ktl (accessed January 8, 2017).

Workplace Safety and Health Regulation, Man Reg 217/2006, http://canlii.ca/t/52hzm (accessed February 21, 2017)

The Heritage Resources Act, CCSM c H39.1, http://canlii.ca/t/k9x2 (accessed February 25, 2017).

AECOM 70/70

FIGURES

Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G001_60529222_01V2_PROJECTLOCATION.MXD (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 Filename: never Plotted: Last (2017-03-08) MAHEC by: Lastsaved Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Prairie, la Portage Ltd. Canada Roquette Proposal Act Environment Project Pea Portage

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community User GIS the and swisstopo, IGP, IGN, Aerogrid, Getmapping, AEX, USGS, USDA, DS, CNES/Airbus Geographics, Earthstar GeoEye, DigitalGlobe, Esri, Source: Credits: Layer Service

2 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Zone UTM 1983 NAD

U V

Norfolk Treherne Norfolk 242

² 1:250,000

Municipality of of Municipality RM of Grey of RM

km

U V

305 5 2.5 0 2.5

Provincial Road Provincial

U V

332

Provincial Highway Provincial

13

² Roads

Municipality

U V

240

Portage la Prairie la Portage

U V

U V

305

RM of of RM 248

Portage la Prairie la Portage

City of of City

Municipal Boundaries Municipal Assiniboine River Assiniboine

U V

242

Project Site Project

³ ²

1 Project Project

U V

331 TRANS CANADA TRANS

U V

U V

424 TransCanada Hwy TransCanada

305

³ ² Cartier

26

TransCanada Hwy TransCanada RM of of RM U V

1

248

² CANADA TRANS

U V

430

North Norfolk North

Municipality of of Municipality 26

V

Project Location Location Project ² U

240

Xavier ²

U V

St. François François St.

221

U V

U V

Rosser Portage Diversion

242 RM of of RM

305 RM of of RM

Portage la Prairie la Portage 16

RM of of RM ² Initials: Checked: Project Designer: Management Approved:

U V

248

Westlake-Gladstone

U V

U V

227

227 Municipality of of Municipality

U V

227

U V

240

Woodlands 16

RM of of RM ²

U V

U V

U V 323

323

242

U V

Brandon

^

430

!

P )

"

Winnipeg

la Prairie la

U V

Portage

50

248 ²

6

U V

Lake Manitoba Manitoba Lake Lake

567 U V

² 411

Thompson

U V

P !

518 279.4mm ANSIx B 431.8mm

Figure: 01 Figure:

N

V U ￿￿

569 ￿￿ N Figure: 02 ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm B x ANSI 279.4mm

UV240

² !P 26 ² Residence

Residence

P! TRANS CANADA TRANS CANADA Portage Diversion Project Approved:Management Designer: Project Checked: Initials: TransCanada Hwy 1 TransCanada Hwy 1

³² P

³² ! !P

P Enns Brothers Simplot ! Residence

!P Site PlanLocation Residence P!

JL Agronomics Portage la Prairie Bypass

P ! Residence

!P UV240 Dakota Tipi First Nation

Project UV240 UV331 Project Site

Municipal Boundaries City of Portage la Prairie

Roads Provincial Highway

Provincial Road Assiniboine River 0.5 0 0.5 1 km 1:60,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: never Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G002_60529222_01V2_SITEPLANLOCATION.MXD Portage Pea Project EnvironmentAct Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage laPrairie, Manitoba Municipality of ￿￿ Westlake-Gladstone N Figure: 03 ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm B x ANSI 279.4mm

RM of Portage la Prairie

² ²

242 16 UV UV240

Municipality of

North Norfolk

² Portage Diversion ² 26

TR A NS CA NA D A TR A NS CA NA D A 1 Project Approved:Management Designer: Project Checked: Initials: TransCanada Hwy ³²1 ³² TransCanada Hwy

Portage la Prairie Bypass

305 331 UV 240 UV

UV Spatial Boundariesof the Environmental Assessment

Project Project Site

Project Area: 2km

Project Region: 10km Assiniboine River

Municipal Boundaries City of Portage la Prairie RM of Portage la Prairie

Municipality

Roads Provincial Highway

Provincial Road

1 0 1 2 km 1:100,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: never Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G003_60529222_01V2_PROJECTAREAREGION.MXD Portage Pea Project EnvironmentAct Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage laPrairie, Manitoba

N Figure: 04 ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm ______Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved: Proposed Site Layout

0 100 200 m 1:4,000 Last saved by: MAHEC(2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2017-03-08 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\PUBLIC\H\EAP\60529222-FIG-30-0000-H-SITELAYOUT_PUBLIC.DWG Portage Pea Project Environment Act Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI ￿￿ Churchill N !P

!P Thompson

Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials: Flin Flon !P

!P The Pas

Project Region Project Region: 10km

Ecodistricts MacGregor

Ecoregion Lake Manitoba Plain

Ecozone Boreal Plain Boreal Shield Hudson Plain Portage la Prairie Winnipeg Prairie !P !P !P Southern Arctic Brandon Taiga Shield

Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2013-02-21 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G005_60529222_01V1_ECOZONES.MXD Portage Pea Project Physiographic Setting Environment Act Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 05 ￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials:

Project Transportation Project Site Provincial Highway Project Area: 2km Rail Line

Water Wells 300 0 300 600 Water Well Within ?@ Project Area m 1:35,000 ?@ Water Well NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © 2010 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2010 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2013-02-21 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G006_60529222_01V1_WATERWELLS.MXD Portage Pea Project Groundwater Wells Within the Project Area Environment Act Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 06

² ² ² ² ²

￿￿ ²

N 10 16 5

² ² ² ² ² ²

16 16 50 Figure: 07

ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm B x ANSI 279.4mm

² 16 ²

Portage DiversionPortage

² ²

²

24 ²

16

²

10 ² ² ²

² ² 34

² ² 5 25

TRANS CANADA TransCanada Hwy ³²1

Project Approved:Management Designer: Project Checked: Initials: P!

TRANS CANADA

1

TransCanada Hwy ² ² ³² 10 Prairie Skink Rangeand Occurance

Project

Project Site

²

Project Area: 2km ²

River ² Project Region: 10km ² 34 5 Prairie Skink Assiniboine Prairie Skink P! Occurrence

Prairie Skink Range

² Municipal Boundaries 2 ² City of

Portage la Prairie

RM of

Portage la Prairie

² ²

²

Roads ² ² ² ² 2 ²

Provincial Highway 34

2 2 ²

3.5 0 3.5 7 ²

² km 18 ² 1:350,000 5 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Prairie Skink data obtained from "Recovery Strategy for the Prairie Skink in Canada (Government of Canada, 2016)" Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: never Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G007_60529222_01V1_PRAIRIESKINK.MXD Portage Pea Project EnvironmentAct Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage laPrairie, Manitoba Municipality of ￿￿ Westlake-Gladstone N Figure: 08 ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm B x ANSI 279.4mm EaLo-8 RM of ") EaLo-39 ") Portage la Prairie EaLo-35 ") ") EaLo-6 EaLo-7 ") EaLo-13 ") ") EaLo-15

EaLn-6

") EaLo-14 EaLo-5 ") ² ² ") ")")") EaLn-8 EaLn-5 EaLn-7 EaLo-3 ") UV242 16 ") EaLo-11 ") EaLo-4 ") EaLn-4 UV240 Municipality of ") EaLo-2 North Norfolk ") EaLo-12

EaLo-1 ")

") ² DlLo-3 ² Portage Diversion 26

TR A NS CA NA D A TR A NS CA NA D A DlLn-13 1

Project Approved:Management Designer: Project Checked: Initials: 1 TransCanada Hwy TransCanada Hwy ") ") ³² ") DlLn-15 ³² DlLo-Y1 DlLn-2 ") ") DlLo-9

DlLn-14 Bypass ") DlLn-12 ") DlLn-1 ") ") DlLn-6 ") DlLp-4 Portage la Prairie DlLn-10 ") DlLp-2 ") DlLn-Y1

DlLn-11 ") Archaeology SitesWithin theProject Region Project 305 331 DlLo-2 ")UV 240 UV Project Site UV

Project Area: 2km

Project Region: 10km

Archaeology

") Archaeological Site Assiniboine River

Municipal Boundaries City of DlLo-4 DlLo-5 ") DlLo-6 Portage la Prairie ") ") ") DlLo-1 ") ") DlLo-7 RM of DlLo-11 Portage la Prairie DlLn-7 Municipality DlLn-3 ") ")

Roads Provincial Highway

Provincial Road

1 0 1 2 km 1:100,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: never Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G008_60529222_01V2_ARCHSITESPROJECTAREAREGION.MXD Portage Pea Project EnvironmentAct Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage laPrairie, Manitoba ￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials:

Project First Nation Land Project Site MP - Industrial Poplar Bluff Zone Transportation M - Manufacturing/Industrial Zone Provincial Highway Portage Diversion Rail Line RMH - Residential Mobile Home Zone Zoning RR - Rural Residential Zone AG - Agricultural General Zone AL - Agricultural Limited Zone 300 0 300 600 m CG - Commercial General Zone 1:35,000 CH - Commercial Highway Zone NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © 2017 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2015-05-26 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G009_60529222_01V1_ZONING.MXD Portage Pea Project Land Use Zoning Environment Act Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 09 ￿￿ 323 UV323 N UV430 UV Figure: 10 ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm B x ANSI 279.4mm

UV240 RM of RM of Woodlands Rockwood

UV227

UV227 UV227 UV248

RM of

Portage Diversion Portage Portage la Prairie

UV221

UV240

² ² RM of 26 Rosser Project Approved:Management Designer: Project Checked: Initials:

UV430

Assiniboine River

² UV248 26 ²

RM of St. François

TransCanada Hwy UV424 Xavier Data Traffic at UMTIG Station 48

331 UV TRANS CANADA RM of 1 ³² Cartier Project Station 48 Project Site ^_^_ ^_ UMTIG Station 248 Municipal Boundaries UV 240 City of UV Portage la Prairie

RM of

² Portage la Prairie ² RM of Municipality 13 Headingley

Roads UV332 AADT Peak Hourly Volume Provincial Highway Description (vehicles per day) (vehicles per hour)* Provincial Road

2 0 2 4 Eastbound 6,410 641

km ² Westbound 6,520 652 RM of ² RM of 1:200,000 Grey 2 Macdonald NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N * Estimated based on 10% of the AADT. Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: never Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G010_60529222_01V1_TRAFFICDATASITE48.MXD Portage Pea Project EnvironmentAct Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage laPrairie, Manitoba ￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI Intersection No. Time Eastbound (EB) Westbound (WB) Northbound (NB) Southbound (SB) Direction of Traffic LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM 0 366 22 80 459 1 6 0 48 4 0 1 1 PM 0 266 10 9 280 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 AM 5 0 0 0 0 36 1 8 1 1050 7 2 PM 0 0 0 0 0430 0 1230 0 Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials:

Project Project Site Traffic Count ^_ Intersection Transportation Provincial Highway Rail Line

80 0 80 160 m 1:10,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © 2017 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2013-02-21 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G011_60529222_01V1_2017_TRAFFICCOUNTINT1AND2.MXD Project Description for a 2017 Traffic Count Pea Processing Facility Intersections 1 & 2 Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 11 ￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials:

Project Transportation Project Site Provincial Highway

Discrete Receptor Rail Line !P Dakota Tipi First Nation !P JL Agronomics 250 0 250 500 !P Residence 1 m 1:30,000 !P Residence 2 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © 2017 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2013-02-21 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G012_60529222_01V1_AIRQUALITY_DISCRETERECEPTORS.MXD Portage Pea Project Air Quality Discrete Receptor Locations Environment Act Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 12 ￿￿ N Figure: 13 ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm B x ANSI 279.4mm

UV240

² "J 26 ²

TRANS CANADA TRANS CANADA Portage Diversion Project Approved:Management Designer: Project Checked: Initials: "J TransCanada Hwy 1 TransCanada Hwy 1

³² P ³² ! !P Enns Brothers Simplot "J "J P! JL Agronomics Portage la Prairie Bypass Noise Impact StudyReceptor Locations

Project "J Project Site 240 Receptor !P UV Dakota Tipi "J R01 First Nation "J R02 "J R03 "J R04 331 UV240 UV "J R05

Municipal Boundaries City of Portage la Prairie

Roads Provincial Highway

Provincial Road Assiniboine River 0.5 0 0.5 1 km 1:60,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: never Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\G013_60529222_01V2_NOISE_SENSITIVERECEPTORS.MXD Portage Pea Project EnvironmentAct Proposal Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage laPrairie, Manitoba

Appendix A

Environment Act Proposal Form

Portage Pea Project

Class 2

Roquette Canada Ltd. 2500-360 Main Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 4H6 Martin Fregeau, President

Winnipeg Manitoba R3C 4H6

[email protected]

Martin Fregeau, President

Polar Bluff Industrial Park (civic address currently unavailable)

Parish Lots 31, 32, and 41 of Portage

Portage la Prairie Manitoba R3C 4H6

[email protected]

Somia Sadiq, BEnv.Sc., EP, MCIP, RPP

204-477-5381 AECOM 99 Commerce Drive, Winnipeg, MB 204-284-2040 R3P 0Y7 [email protected]

March 9, 2017

Appendix B

Letter of Intention to Purchase and Certificates of Title

PHONE: 857-3821 NETTIE NEUDORF, CPA, CGA, C.M.M.A. FAX: 239-0069 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER email: [email protected] website: www.rmofportage.ca RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE

35 TUPPER STREET SOUTH, PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE, MANITOBA R1N 1W7

March 8, 2017

Dear To Whom it May Concern:

Regarding: Parish Lots 31, 32 and 41 of Portage

This is to confirm that Roquette Canada Ltd. has agreed to purchase the lands referenced above in the summer of 2017 for the Portage Pea Project in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park.

We do not foresee any issues with the transfer of title from the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie to Roquette Canada Ltd.

Yours truly,

Nettie Neudorf, CPA, CGA, CMMA Chief Administrative Officer

Appendix C

Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Roquette Canada Ltd.

Project Number: 60529222

March 2017

AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

 is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);  represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports;  may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified;  has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;  must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;  was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and  in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client.

Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx i AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Quality information

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Elizabeth Philp, EIT. Michael Gregg, P.Eng. Peter Tkalec, P.Eng. Junior Air Quality Engineer Air Quality Engineer Sr. Air Quality Engineer

Revision History

Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position

Distribution List

# Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name X Roquette Canada Ltd.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx ii AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd.

Prepared by: AECOM Canada Ltd. 48 Quarry Park Boulevard SE Suite 300 Calgary AB T2C 5P2 Canada

T: 403.254.3301 F: 403.270.0399 aecom.com

© 2016 AECOM Canada Ltd.. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx iii AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Executive Summary

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was retained by Roquette Canada Ltd. (“Roquette”) to prepare an air quality impact study to inform the Environmental Assessment for the Portage Pea Project. The Portage Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”) is located on Road 65 N, east of the Road 41 W (Simplot Road) and Road 65 N intersection, in the Rural Municipality (RM) of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, Canada.

The proposed Facility will be located within the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park in the RM of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. The proposed Facility will process yellow peas into three key products: fibers, protein, and starch. Each of these products has several additional applications in industries such as pharma, nutrition, and food. The emissions associated with the pulse processing and Facility operations have been modelled as per Manitoba Sustainable Development’s Draft Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Manitoba (MCWS, November 2006).

An air dispersion modelling assessment was completed using AERMOD (version #15181) to estimate the maximum modelled ground-level concentrations of particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10), total suspended particulate (TSP), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulphur dioxide (SO2).

Emissions from the Facility were estimated under two operating conditions: maximum normal operation and an upset scenario. The upset scenario represents a possible temporary period of poor performance by air pollution control equipment, and conservatively considers the unlikely simultaneous occurrence of upsets across multiple processes.

The modelled ground-level concentrations of the pollutants were then added to existing background ambient air quality conditions to determine their cumulative impact. This cumulative impact was then compared to the applicable air quality criteria based on the Department of Sustainable Development (DSD) Ambient Air Quality Criteria.

Modelled ambient concentrations of CO, SO2, and NO2 were all found to be below the Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria (MAAQC). Modelled ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 show a small area immediately east of the Facility that is potentially above the respective Maximum Acceptable Level (“MAL”) for both upset and normal conditions, with the maximum predicted concentration being higher in the upset scenario. The maximum predicted concentrations occur within 20 m of the property boundary and drop to below the MAL beyond this distance; the concentrations at the nearest residence and the Dakota Tipi First Nation are below the threshold. The likelihood of this upset scenario occurring is low. Based on Roquette’s experience and know-how, this is expected to be in the order of magnitude of once every five years. Should this change, Roquette will implement the corrective measures required.

Although modelled concentrations of TSP exceed the 24-hr average MAL of 120 µg/m3 in a small area immediately east of the Facility, they are below the 24-hr average Maximum Tolerable Level (“MTL”) of 400 µg/m3 at upset conditions. The 24-hour and annual averaging periods are below the MAL and the Maximum Desirable Conditions (“MDL”) at normal operating conditions when the ambient background concentration is included in the modelled results.

In summary, despite localized exceedances of particulate levels immediately adjacent to the Facility, predicted concentrations quickly drop well below air quality criteria and no significant impacts to ambient air quality from the proposed Facility are expected near any of the identified sensitive receptors.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx iv AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Distribution List Executive Summary

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Facility Description ...... 2 3. Process Description ...... 3 4. Regulations, Guidelines, and Air Quality Criteria ...... 4 4.1 Regulations and Guidelines ...... 4 4.2 Air Quality Criteria ...... 4 5. Methodology ...... 6 5.1 Boundaries ...... 6 5.1.1 Spatial Boundary ...... 6 5.1.2 Temporal Boundary ...... 6 5.2 Dispersion Modelling ...... 6 5.2.1 Meteorology ...... 7 5.2.1.1 Topography ...... 10 5.2.1.2 Land-Use Characteristics ...... 10 5.2.1.3 Surface Roughness ...... 10 5.2.1.4 Albedo ...... 11 5.2.1.5 Bowen Ratio ...... 11 5.2.2 Background Ambient Air Quality ...... 11 5.2.3 Study Area and Receptors ...... 12 5.2.4 Buildings ...... 13 5.2.5 Facility Emission Sources ...... 13 5.2.6 Summary of Conservative Approach to Modelling ...... 13 6. Results ...... 15 7. Summary and Discussion ...... 16 8. References ...... 17

Figures

Figure 1. Site Plan Figure 2. Land Use within 3 km of Project Site Figure 3. Land Use Zoning Tables

Table 2-1. Facility Information ...... 2 Table 4-1. Applicable Guidelines ...... 4 Table 4-2. Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria ...... 5 Table 5-1. Surface Roughness by Month as Input to AERMET ...... 10 Table 5-2. Albedo by Month used as Input to AERMET ...... 11 Table 5-3. Bowen Ratio by Month Used as Input to AERMET ...... 11 Table 5-4. Ambient Background Air Quality ...... 12 Table 5-5. Sensitive Receptors ...... 13 Table 6-1. Maximum Predicted Concentrations on Receptor Grid ...... 15

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx v AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Attachments

Appendix C1. Isopleths: Maximum Predicted Concentrations

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx vi AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

1. Introduction

The Portage Pea Project will be located within the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park in the Rural Municipality (RM) of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. The Portage Pea Project (herein referred to as “Facility”) will process yellow peas into three key products: fibers, protein, and starch. Each of these products has several additional applications in industries such as pharma, nutrition, and food. The location of the Facility is shown in Figure 1.

An air dispersion modelling assessment was completed to estimate the maximum modelled concentrations of particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulphur dioxide (SO2). The emissions associated with the proposed Facility operations have been modelled as per Manitoba Sustainable Development’s Draft Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Manitoba (MCWS, November 2006). The maximum modelled concentrations were then compared to the MCWS thresholds as a means to evaluate the air quality impacts of the Facility.

Section 2 provides a Facility description including the buildings and emission sources. Section 3 discusses the proposed design and impacts to the air emissions. Section 4 discusses the various guidance documents referenced for Manitoba and other appropriate jurisdictions as they pertain to air dispersion modelling and air criteria. Section 5 describes, in detail, the methodology, procedures, and inputs into the dispersion modelling analysis. Section 6 provides a discussion of the modelling results. Section 7 summarizes the conclusions and significant findings of the study.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 1 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

2. Facility Description

General Facility description and location information is included in Section 2: Project Description in the Portage Pea Project Environment Act Proposal. Table 2-1 details the Facility information including the name, address, and type. A site plan is shown in Figure 1 depicting the property lines, location and orientation of current and proposed buildings, and location of the existing and proposed emission sources.

Emission sources, including twenty-seven (27) proposed point sources for stacks. The building dimensions along with the detailed emission source locations have been removed from the public version of this report for proprietary reasons.

The proposed emission sources are from de-dusting units, air separators, grinders, boiler flue gases, gas heaters, and dryers. Table 2-1. Facility Information

Name of Facility Portage Pea Project

Facility Address Parish Lots 31, 32, and 41 of Portage

Type of Facility Manufacturing facility

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 2 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

3. Process Description

A detailed process description can be found in the Section 2: Project Description in the Portage Pea Project Environment Act Proposal. Air emissions from the process come from combustion of natural gas and the processing equipment. The following are the types of air emission sources:

 Grinders;  De-dusting units;  Boilers;  Dryers;  Gas heaters, and  Other processing equipment.

Minor and incidental emission sources have been evaluated but excluded from modelling because they have been deemed negligible or not measurable. These include:

 Fugitive dust from on-site roadways;  Exhaust from transport trucks on site;  Various fugitive building exhaust points;  Vapours of solvents, maintenance chemicals and adhesives from the packaging area, and  Welding/grinding associated with construction or maintenance repairs of the processing Facility.

All modelled emission sources for the proposed Facility are defined in Section 5.2.5.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 3 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

4. Regulations, Guidelines, and Air Quality Criteria

4.1 Regulations and Guidelines

Table 4-1 outlines the guidelines used to provide a structured and reliable assessment of potential impacts that the Facility may have on ambient air quality. The Manitoba guidelines were used as the primary reference. Other out-of- province guidelines were used to supplement when necessary.

Table 4-1. Applicable Guidelines

Guideline Agency Rationale for Use Department of Draft Guidelines for Air This guideline is a resource that provides consistency in Sustainable Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba dispersion modelling across all regulatory applications. Development Department of Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Manitoba provides a listing of Ambient Air Quality Criteria and Sustainable Criteria (MAAQC) Guidelines for various air pollutants. Development Alberta Environment This for dispersion modelling provides guidance on appropriate Alberta Air Quality Modelling and Sustainable surface characteristics and receptor grids to supplement the Guideline Resource Development Manitoba guidelines. This guideline is a resource that helps with the use of the related Unites States US EPA AERMOD Implementation modelling modules and programs (AERMOD, AERMAP, AERMET, Environmental Guide AERSURFACE, AERSCREEN) and the required additional Protection Agency information.

4.2 Air Quality Criteria

The evaluation of ambient air quality typically relies on comparison of modelled concentrations to regulatory standards or objectives. The regulatory standards or objectives are designed by the local, provincial, or federal authority to be conservative and protective of air quality. MAAQC was used in this assessment. The assessment of air quality impacts are used to determine appropriateness of Facility design such as establishing preferred stack heights and control devices.

The parameters of concern for the Facility include:

 Fine Particulate (PM2.5 and PM10);  Total Suspended Particulate (TSP);  Carbon Monoxide (CO);

 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2); and

 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2).

CO, NO2, and SO2 were selected as they are the by-products of fuel combustion from the dryers, boilers, and gas heaters.

The applicable air quality criteria are summarized in Table 4-2.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 4 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Table 4-2. Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria

Maximum Desirable Name of Units of Maximum Tolerable Maximum Acceptable Averaging Period Level Pollutant Measurement Level Concentration Level Concentration Concentration

3 PM2.5 µg/m 24 hours 30

3 PM10 µg/m 24 hours 50 24 hours 400 120 TSP µg/m3 Annual 70 60 1 hour 35 15 CO mg/m3 8 hours 20 15 6 1 hour 400 3 NO2 µg/m 24 hours 1000 200 60 Annual 100 1 hour 900 450 3 SO2 µg/m 24 hours 800 300 150 Annual 60 30

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 5 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

5. Methodology

The Facility was assessed in the format of a Refined Assessment in accordance with the Draft Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Manitoba (MCWS, November 2006).

The air emissions from the Facility were modelled using emission estimates based on design information as described in Section 5.2.5. The modelling results are summarized in the form of tables, in Section 6, and isopleths, in Appendix C1. Isopleths provide pollutant concentration contour plots. The isopleths and the maximum modelled concentration results were used to assess the potential for concerns at the receptor with the highest modelled concentration and to compare to the MAAQC.

Details on the preparation of the modelled source emissions, stack parameters and the dispersion modelling methods (i.e. meteorological and terrain data) are discussed in detail in this Section.

5.1 Boundaries

Boundaries for the air quality modelling assessment are categorized in two ways: spatial and temporal. The modelled concentrations from the Facility and comparison with air quality criteria (as noted in Section 4) are investigated within these defined boundaries.

5.1.1 Spatial Boundary

The study area for this modelling assessment was based on a 10 km by 10 km domain surrounding the Facility to assess where the emissions may impact. This is based on the conservative model approach from the Draft Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba. A survey of this area showed that there were not any sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, senior homes, community centers or public recreation areas as defined by the Guidelines within the spatial boundary. Nonetheless, discrete receptors were added to the model to show predicted concentrations at nearby residences and at the Dakota Tipi First Nation, approximately 3 km away from the Facility. There were receptors set around the property boundary and a fine and coarse receptor grid was defined for the whole domain. For further discussion on the receptor grid and discrete receptors included in the model please see Section 5.2.4.

5.1.2 Temporal Boundary

Temporal boundaries for this assessment have been developed in consideration of continuous operations and emissions from the Facility. The maximum concentrations modelled are based on the Facility operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The model assumed 365 days of operation to assess emission scenarios.

For air emissions, the temporal boundary also includes several time averaging periods including 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, and annual time periods. The potential effects on air quality are presented in accordance with the time periods outlined for the identified air quality criteria in Section 2.1.

Other temporal boundaries include the time period for which meteorological conditions were assessed. Meteorological data for five (5) years, 2006-2010, were considered for the modelling assessment as they were the 5 most recent consecutive years with complete data available. Refer to Section 5.2.1 for details.

5.2 Dispersion Modelling

Air dispersion models can be used to assess the likelihood of airborne contaminants from the Facility impacting a particular location. The use of these tools comes with a certain amount of uncertainty. Dispersion models mathematically predict the behaviour of emitted plumes by accounting for: emission rates, physical characteristics of

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 6 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

the release, geometry and location of the sources as related to receptor locations, terrain effects, meteorology, and atmospheric dispersion.

The American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) was formed to introduce state-of-the-art modelling concepts into the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA’s) air quality models. Through AERMIC, a modelling system, AERMOD, was introduced that incorporated air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources and both simple and complex terrain (US EPA, 2004). One of the regulatory approved dispersion models in Manitoba is AERMOD, as outlined in the Draft Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba (MCWS, 2006).

Given the likelihood that the highest modelled concentrations will occur in the near-field (within 1 km), it was decided that AERMOD was the preferred model for this assessment. AERMOD (Version #15181) was also selected for this application because of its ability to account for:

1. Directional and seasonal variations in land-use; 2. Building induced plume downwash, which can affect the sources plume rise; 3. Dispersion in a mixed urban/forested environment; and 4. Terrain influences.

AERMOD also considers variable urban treatment as a function of city population and can selectively model sources as rural or urban. Based on the Draft Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba (MCWS, 2006) the Facility was modelled as Rural, as types I1, I2, C1, R2, and R3 account for less than 50% of the 3 km area.

In addition, AERMET and AERMAP, AERMOD’s meteorological and terrain pre-processors, were employed to process meteorological data and terrain data inputs for AERMOD. Modelling was conducted in accordance with the 2006 Draft Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba, where applicable. Where the Guidelines did not address a particular modelling element, the Alberta Air Quality Modelling Guideline (AEP 2013) and the US EPA AERMOD Implementation Guide (Revised) (2009) were used as guidance.

5.2.1 Meteorology

Air quality is dependent on the rate of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere and the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the pollutant emissions. The dispersion of air pollutants is affected by local meteorological patterns. The wind direction controls the path that air pollutants follow from the point of emission to the receptors. In addition, wind speeds affect the time taken for pollutants to travel from source to receptor and the distance over which air pollutants travel. As a result, wind speeds also impact the dispersion of air pollutants. Therefore, it is important to assess local meteorological patterns to assess potential air quality effects.

AERMET (Version #15181), AERMOD’s meteorological pre-processor requires hourly surface observations along with concurrent twice-daily upper air observations. As such, the dispersion modelling used five years (2006-2010) of meteorological data from Winnipeg James Armstrong International Airport along with concurrent upper air data from International Falls, Minnesota as the closest source of complete upper air quality data with a similar thermal profile and elevation to Portage la Prairie. 2006-2010 were chosen for the surface and upper air data as they were the most recent consecutive data set with acceptable quality and completeness. Insert 1 shows a 5-year (2006-2010) wind rose for Winnipeg International Airport and Insert 2 shows a frequency distribution of the wind over 7 wind speed class ranges.

Insert 1 shows that the winds are calm approximately 2.4 percent of the time over the five-year period. Calm is defined in this instance as when the winds are less than the starting threshold of the anemometer (0.5 m/s). It is not likely the 2.4 percent calm hours represented are truly calm for the entire hour; rather the winds are below the threshold of the anemometer at the time when the observation is taken.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 7 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

AERMOD does not have the ability to model calm winds. As such, these events were not assessed as part of the dispersion modelling analysis. Conversely, AERMOD is conservative (over-predicts) during very low non-calm periods.

Insert 1. Windrose of Meteorological Data (Jan. 1, 2006 – Dec. 31, 2010)

Insert 2. Wind Class Frequency Distribution of Meteorological Data (Jan. 1, 2006 – Dec. 31, 2010)

The five years of surface meteorological data, taken from the Winnipeg James Armstrong International Airport, were obtained from the National Climate Data Center’s (NCDC) ftp site (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa) in the Integrated Surface Hourly (ISH) format. The ISH-formatted surface data is able to be used directly by AERMET. Data from more recent years were missing important meteorological readings including cloud cover and wind direction for

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 8 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

more than 10% of the available data. An older set of data was used as there were less missing hours at the nearest station.

The five years of upper air data were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA/ESRL) Radiosonde Database in Forecast System Laboratory (FSL) format. The FSL-formatted upper air data is able to be used directly by AERMET.

AERMET produces surface scalar parameters and vertical profiles of meteorological data as an input for AERMOD. In order to quantify the boundary layer parameters needed by AERMOD, AERMET also requires specification of site- specific land use characteristics including surface roughness (zo), albedo (r) and Bowen ratio (Bo). These site characteristics are used by AERMET, along with the meteorological data to help characterize the atmospheric boundary layer and dispersion. The boundary layer is quantified by AERMET in calculating parameters such as:

 Sensible heat flux;  Surface friction velocity;  Convective velocity scale;  Vertical potential temperature gradient;  Height of convectively-generated boundary layer;  Height of mechanically-generated boundary layer; and  Monin-obukhov length (m).

These boundary layer parameters are calculated on an hourly basis and are contained in AERMET’s surface file. The surface file is read into AERMOD and these values are used to quantify the atmospheric dispersion.

The land use surface characteristics surrounding the Facility site were quantified for this project and were determined based on specific land use surface characteristics provided to AERMET. The land use characteristics for this assessment were developed using the Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline (AEP, 2013) for calculating albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness.

In the Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline (AEP, 2013), the various land use categories are linked to a set of seasonal surface characteristics. As such, AERMET requires specification of the seasonal category for each month of the year. The following four seasonal categories are supported by the Guidelines, with the applicable months of the year specified for this assessment.

1. Spring when vegetation is emerging or partially green (April-May); 2. Summer when vegetation is lush and healthy (June-September); 3. Autumn when periods of freezing conditions are common, grass is brown and no snow is present (October - November); and 4. Winter when there are subfreezing temperatures and snow-covered services (December-March).

The calculated albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness values for this specific assessment was based on the Manitoba Land Initiative digital land use data, more specifically the Land Use/Land Cover Land Sat and TM maps version 2005-2006 for the Winnipeg Region.

Figure 2 shows the applicable land use data within 3 km (as edited based on the aerial photo graph) that was used to calculate land characteristics for this assessment. Specifically, the land use values for input to AERMET were varied monthly. The calculation for each land use parameter is discussed below.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 9 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

5.2.1.1 Topography

Topographical features, such as river valleys and mountainous terrain, can have an important effect on airflow and, therefore, the atmospheric dispersion. Examples of topographically induced circulations include mountain-valley circulations and flow around topographical boundaries. A valley in which a river flows could introduce wind tunnelling.

The terrain in the immediate vicinity of the Facility is relatively flat. The Facility’s elevation is approximately 269m above sea level. Nevertheless, for this dispersion modelling assessment, terrain data was included and based on Canadian digital elevation data (CDED). This data was obtained from the GeoGratis Canada website. The appropriate region was selected based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of the Project site. AERMAP, AERMOD’s terrain pre-processor program prepares the input receptor terrain elevation data file for AERMOD. AERMAP (Model Version #11103) was employed to extract CDED DEM files for a 1:50,000 for the study area.

As seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3, around the Facility there are multiple farms, TransCanada Highway to the north of the Facility, commercial/industrial development to the north and the north east. There are multiple water bodies in the area including Lake Manitoba to the North, and the Portage Diversion, the Assiniboine River and Crescent Lake are to the east of the Facility. There is no known terrain within 50 km of the Facility that is higher than any of the modelled stacks. There are no significant terrain effects or predominant features within 3 km of the Facility. The US border lies approximately 150 km south of the Facility.

5.2.1.2 Land-Use Characteristics

The Draft Guidelines for Air Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba stipulate that the land use of the surrounding 3 km must be assessed using the Auer land use classification method to determine whether the urban dispersion coefficients should be based on rural or urban coefficients. In the model a rural coefficient was utilized to represent the surrounding area as less than 50% of the surrounding 3 km were zones as heavy industrial, light-moderate industrial, commercial, single-family compact residential, and multifamily compact residential, as seen in Figure 3. In addition, in order to complete the meteorological preprocessing surface roughness, Albedo and Bowen ratio must be input. The land use characteristics were modelled for Cultivated Land.

5.2.1.3 Surface Roughness

The surface roughness was calculated based on a 3 km radius surrounding the site as shown in Figure 2. Table 5-1 lists the surface roughness values that were input to AERMET for each month.

Table 5-1. Surface Roughness by Month as Input to AERMET

Monthly Weighted Surface Month Season Roughness January Winter .01 February Winter .01 March Winter .01 April Spring .03 May Spring .03 June Summer .20 July Summer .20 August Summer .20 September Summer .20 October Autumn .05 November Autumn .05 December Winter .01

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 10 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

5.2.1.4 Albedo

The Albedo was calculated based on a 3 km radius surrounding the site from Figure 2. Table 5-2 lists the Albedo values for each month that were input to AERMET.

Table 5-2. Albedo by Month used as Input to AERMET

Monthly Weighted Month Season Albedo by Sector January Winter .60 February Winter .60 March Winter .60 April Spring .14 May Spring .14 June Summer .20 July Summer .20 August Summer .20 September Summer .20 October Autumn .18 November Autumn .18 December Winter .60

5.2.1.5 Bowen Ratio

The Bowen Ratio was calculated based on a 3 km radius surrounding the site shown in Figure 2. Table 5-3 lists the Bowen ratio values for each month that were input to AERMET.

Table 5-3. Bowen Ratio by Month Used as Input to AERMET

Monthly Weighted Month Season Bowen Ratio by Sector January Winter 1.5 February Winter 1.5 March Winter 1.5 April Spring 0.3 May Spring 0.3 June Summer 0.5 July Summer 0.5 August Summer 0.5 September Summer 0.5 October Autumn 0.7 November Autumn 0.7 December Winter 1.5 5.2.2 Background Ambient Air Quality

Background air quality information will be added to modelled conditions to appropriately assess the cumulative impacts of the Facility. The background concentrations of the modelled parameters were obtained from the nearest sources with available data. The locations of the data sources include Brandon, Manitoba (approximately 120 km west of the Facility), and Winnipeg, Manitoba (approximately 85 km east of the Facility). The background conditions

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 11 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

at the applicable averaging periods over a period of 5 years from 2011 to 2016 are summarized in Table 5-4. The MAQQC is also shown for context, including the Maximum Tolerable Level (“MTL”), Maximum Acceptable Level (“MAL”), and the Maximum Desirable Level (“MDL”) where applicable.

Table 5-4. Ambient Background Air Quality

Ambient Manitoba AAQC Data Source Units of Pollutant Averaging Period Background MTL MAL MDL Location Measurement Air Quality Concentration Concentration Concentration Brandon, 24 hour 90th PM µg/m3 1 10.8 30 2.5 Manitoba percentile2 Brandon, 24 hour 90th PM µg/m3 1 34.5 50 10 Manitoba percentile2 Brandon, 24 hour 34.5 400 120 TSP µg/m3 1 Manitoba Annual 15.3 70 60 Winnipeg, 1 hour maximum 3.43 35 15 CO mg/m3 Manitoba 8 hour maximum 1.70 20 15 6 1 hour 90th percentile2 20.0 400

Brandon, NO µg/m3 24 hour 90th 18.2 1000 200 60 2 Manitoba percentile2 7.5 100 Annual Mean 1 hour maximum 53.6 900 450 Winnipeg, SO µg/m3 24 hour maximum 5.6 800 300 150 2 Manitoba Annual mean 0.0 60 30

Notes:

1 PM2.5/PM10 is assumed to be reported at standard temperature and pressure. TSP background is assumed to be the same as PM10 background. 2The 90th percentile for 1-hr and 24-hr averaging periods for PM and NOx were applied to the background concentrations for consistency with the guidance from the Manitoba Conservation and Water

Additionally, there is a large manufacturing facility north of the Portage Pea Facility. The emissions from this neighbouring facility were not directly considered in the ambient background as there are no continuous monitoring sites in the immediate area that would account for this facility. However, the ambient stations that were used in this assessment are expected to represent a larger impact from industrial activity than a local station would, and so the approach applied is considered conservative.

5.2.3 Study Area and Receptors

Receptor grids and discrete receptors are required to define the locations where the model will estimate concentrations. The receptor grid was designed to ensure that the model captures the maximum modelled concentrations and assess the area where the emissions may have a significant impact. The receptor grid was developed based on the Draft Guidelines for Air Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba and was supplemented with the Alberta Air Quality Model Guidelines. A Cartesian receptor grid was utilized as there were multiple emission sources modelling. The receptor grid used the following spacing and distances:

 20 m receptor spacing along the Facility boundary;  50 m receptor spacing within 500 m of Facility;  250 m receptor spacing within 2 km of Facility;  500 m receptor spacing within 5 km of Facility; and  1000 m receptor spacing beyond 5 km of Facility.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 12 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

To be conservative, the 20 m receptor spacing was implemented within 250 m of the Facility boundary. The nearest receptors to the points of impingement are residential properties and businesses surrounding the Facility. There are no sensitive receptors such as schools, daycares, hospitals, community centers or public recreation areas, as defined by Draft Guidelines for Air Dispersion Modelling in Manitoba within 5 km of the Facility boundary. Nonetheless, for reference, four discrete receptors were modelled as seen in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5. Sensitive Receptors

Distance from Property Receptor Easting (mE) Northing (mN) Boundary (m) Dakota Tipi First Nation 2400 546302 5532900 JL Agronomics Ltd. 200 543192 5534644 Residence 1 1600 542316 5536215 Residence 2 200 543660 5533341

5.2.4 Buildings

To account for the dispersion impacts of the buildings on site, several buildings were included in the model. The buildings were modelled based on dimensions from the Facility design drawings. Buildings produce building induced plume downwash that affects the air dispersion around the emission sources. Building downwash is a phenomenon that occurs when the winds blow across the top of a building and create enhanced turbulence that would not otherwise be present if the building did not exist. The enhanced turbulence created by the presence of the building causes more vertical mixing and thus a lower ground-level concentration when the plume actually reaches the ground. 5.2.5 Facility Emission Sources

The proposed Facility consists of 27 modelled sources.

The air quality modelling assessment was based on maximum production and maximum equipment load rates. This provides the worst case results. Normal conditions for emission sources with factors linked to production are based on average expected production figures.

The maximum concentrations modelled are based on the Facility operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week to assess emission scenarios.

Detailed emission rates at point sources have been removed for proprietary reasons. Annual emission rates were based on the maximum run days. The basis for emission rates and emission factors for each source are based on operational numbers from similar facilities and manufacturer guarantees. Normal conditions were selected to represent the maximum emissions under normal operating conditions. Upset conditions represent a possible maximum condition expected to occur only temporarily during equipment malfunction.

5.2.6 Summary of Conservative Approach to Modelling

The modelling assessment used a conservative approach to provide worst-case scenario results. The key assumptions, attributes and methodologies leading to this conservative approach include:

 Emission rates were based on constant maximum production rates. In reality, production rates are expected to vary;  The particle size distribution of particulate matter fraction sizes was not available; therefore emission rates of

PM2.5, PM10, and TSP were both assumed to be equal;

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 13 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

 Background ambient concentrations were obtained from Winnipeg and Brandon and likely have higher ambient pollutant concentrations due to the increased industrial activity compared to the outskirts of Portage la Prairie;

 All NOx has been assumed as NO2 (conservative); and  The inherent nature of dispersion modelling involves assuming that all sources are emitting the maximum estimated value for the scenario (normal or upset) concurrently, and at worst case meteorological conditions. In reality, different sources will be at varying conditions (e.g. different exhaust concentrations, temperature, etc.) and many more favourable meteorological conditions occur over a given time period. The likelihood of all sources operating at peak conditions (particularly under upset conditions) during periods of the least favourable meteorological conditions is low.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 14 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

6. Results

All of the maximum concentrations for all averaging periods, for all parameters, are predicted to occur within 20 m of the property boundary. The maximum concentrations are expected to occur during the night time, under stable conditions and very light winds. Table 6-1 includes the maximum concentrations for the proposed Facility. Isopleths showing the distribution of predicted concentrations over the study area for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) can be seen in Appendix C1.

Note that NO2 was modelled as NOx and compared to the NO2 threshold. This is a conservative estimate and assumes that the entire NO fraction of NOX is converted to NO2 in the atmosphere.

Table 6-1 identifies the upset PM2.5, PM10 and 24-hour TSP maximum concentrations are the only contaminants with exceedances of the MALs. The remainder of the contaminants are all under the applicable MTL, MAL, and MDLs.

Table 6-1. Maximum Predicted Concentrations on Receptor Grid Maximum Modelled Maximum Averaging Concentration Pollutant Concentration % of MTL % of MAL % of MDL Period (including Location Background) Upset: 543875 , Upset: 103.30 µg/m3 Upset: 344% 5534601 PM2.5 24 hour Normal: 543875 , Normal: 61.90 µg/m3 Normal: 206% 5534601 Upset: 543875 , Upset: 126.99 µg/m3 Upset: 254% 5534601 PM 24 hour 10 Normal: 543875 , Normal: 85.60 µg/m3 Normal: 171% 5534601 Upset: 543875 , Upset: 126.99 µg/m3 Upset: 32% Upset: 106% 5534601 24 hour Normal: 543875 , Normal: 85.60 µg/m3 Normal: 21% Normal: 71% 5534601 TSP Upset: 543875, Upset:31.79 µg/m3 Upset: 45% Upset: 53% 5534601. Annual Normal: 543875 , Normal: Normal: 24.92 µg/m3 Normal: 36% 5534601 42% 1 hour 3.53 mg/m3 543435 , 5534401 10% 24% CO 8 hour 1.75 mg/m3 543335 , 5534441 9% 12% 29% 1 hour 126.47 µg/m3 543435 , 5534401 32% 3 NO2 24 hour 51.52 µg/m 543395 , 5534401 5% 26% 86% Annual 10.89 µg/m3 543875 , 5534561 11% 1 hour 69.53 µg/m3 543435 , 5534401 8% 15% 3 SO2 24 hour 10.62 µg/m 543395 , 5534401 1% 4% 7% Annual 0.59 µg/m3 543875 , 5534561 1% 2%

All contaminants are below the MAL and MDL concentrations at the sensitive receptors.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 15 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

7. Summary and Discussion

An air dispersion model was conducted to determine the current and proposed impacts of the Facility. Modelling results of the proposed project predict that PM2.5, PM10 and TSP maximum concentrations may exceed the MAAQC in a small area immediately east of the Facility; these concentrations drop below the MAAQCs within 20 m of the Facility and remain well under at all sensitive receptors. For example, during upset conditions the model shows predicted concentrations at only 10% of the PM2.5 MAL at the nearest residence and 9% of the MAL at the Dakota Tipi First Nation. The likelihood of this upset scenario occurring is low. Based on Roquette’s experience and know- how, this is expected to be in the order of magnitude of once every five years. Should this change, Roquette will implement the corrective measures required.

Contributing to the predicted maximums is a high background ambient concentration of 34.5µg/m3, already making up 69% of the MAL.

A full representation of the distribution of predicted concentrations of PM2.5 can be seen in the isopleth figures in Appendix C1 as they had exceedances of the MAL.

Modelled ambient concentrations of CO, SO2, and NO2 are all expected to be below the MAAQC.

In summary, no significant impacts to ambient air quality from the Facility are expected when the proximity of nearby sensitive receptors is considered.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 16 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

8. References

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines Summary (August 2013). Retrieved: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5726.pdf

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (MCWS). Draft Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Manitoba (MCWS, November 2006)

US EPA 2013. AERSURFACE User’s Guide. (EPA-454/B-08-001, January 2008, Revised January 2013). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

US EPA 2009. AERMOD Implementation Guide (Revised). US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. March 19, 2009.

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 17 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Figures

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 18

￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials:

Project Project Site (! Emission Source

Transportation Provincial Highway Rail Line

210 0 210 420 m 1:25,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © 2017 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2013-02-21 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\PUBLIC\H\APPENDIXAIR C - QUALITY\G001_60529222_01V1_APPXC_AIRQUALITYSITEPLAN.MXD Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Site Plan Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 1 ￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI

TransCanada Hwy Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials: SimplotRd

Project Open Decidious Forest Project Site Range and Grassland 3 km Site Buffer Roads Trails Rail Lines Land Use/Land Cover Water Body Agri - Forage Field Wetland - Marsh Agricultural Field 430 0 430 860 Cultural Features m Decidious Forest 1:50,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp, Earthstar Geographics LLC Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2013-02-21 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\APPENDIXAIR QUALITY\G002_60529222_01V1_APPXC_AIRQUALITYLANDUSEWITHIN3KM.MXD C - Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Land Use within 3km of Project Site Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 2 ￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials:

Project First Nation Land Project Site MP - Industrial Poplar Bluff Zone Transportation M - Manufacturing/Industrial Zone Provincial Highway Portage Diversion Rail Line RMH - Residential Mobile Home Zone Zoning RR - Rural Residential Zone AG - Agricultural General Zone AL - Agricultural Limited Zone 300 0 300 600 m CG - Commercial General Zone 1:35,000 CH - Commercial Highway Zone NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © 2017 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2015-05-26 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\APPENDIXAIR QUALITY\G003_60529222_01V1_APPXC_AIRQUALITYLANDUSEZONING.MXD C - Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Land Use Zoning Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 3 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

Appendix C1

Isopleths: Maximum Predicted Concentrations

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 19

Last saved by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: never Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved: ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\APPENDIX C1 - AIR QUALITY\G005_60529222_01V1_APPXC1_AIRQUALITYPM25_24H_UPSET.MXD PM Receptor Discrete Transportation Project !P !P !P !P !P N 2.5 Point of Interest of Point

92.49 µg/m 92.49 Concentration Maximum 2 Residence 1 Residence JL Agronomics Nation Tipi First Dakota Line Rail Highway Provincial Site Project ￿￿ 3 250 Maximum Acceptable Level (MAL) = 30 µg/m 30 = (MAL) Level Acceptable Maximum PM NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Zone UTM 1983 NAD 1:25,000 2.5 Upset (µg/m Upset > 100% > 100% - 75 75% - 50 50% - 25 25% 0 - 0 250 3 ) 500 m 3

Service Layer Credits: © 2010 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2010 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation Microsoft 2017 © SIO Geographics Earthstar GeoEye 2010 © USGS of courtesy Image DigitalGlobe 2010 © Credits: Layer Service ³² TRANS CANADA TRANS 1

Appendix C1: Portage Pea Project PM2.5 24 Hour Averaging Period Upset Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: C1.1 Last saved by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: never Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved: ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\APPENDIX C1 - AIR QUALITY\G006_60529222_01V1_APPXC1_AIRQUALITYPM25_24H_NORMAL.MXD PM Receptor Discrete Transportation Project !P !P !P !P !P N 2.5 Point of Interest of Point

51.09 µg/m 51.09 Concentration Maximum 2 Residence 1 Residence JL Agronomics Nation Tipi First Dakota Line Rail Highway Provincial Site Project ￿￿ 3 250 µg/m 30 = (MAL) Level Acceptable Maximum PM NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Zone UTM 1983 NAD 1:25,000 2.5 Normal (µg/m Normal > 100% > 100% - 75 75% - 50 50% - 25 25% 0 - 0 250 3 ) 500 m 3

Service Layer Credits: © 2010 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2010 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation Microsoft 2017 © SIO Geographics Earthstar GeoEye 2010 © USGS of courtesy Image DigitalGlobe 2010 © Credits: Layer Service ³² TRANS CANADA TRANS 1

Appendix C1: Portage Pea Project PM2.5 24 Hour Averaging Period Normal Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: C1.2 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix C: Portage Pea Project Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Report

aecom.com

RPT-2017-03-16_Appendix C AQ_P-Final.Docx 20

Appendix D

Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study

Appendix D: Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study

Roquette Canada Ltd.

Project Number 60529222

March, 2017 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): x is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); x represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; x may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; x has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; x must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; x was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and x in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. AECOM: 2015-04-13 © 2009-2015 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM

Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study Executive Summary

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was retained by Roquette Canada Ltd. (“Roquette”) to prepare a Noise Impact Study to inform the Environmental Assessment for the Portage Pea Project. The Portage Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”) is located on Road 65 N, east of the Road 41 W (Simplot Road) and Road 65 N intersection, in the Rural Municipality (RM) of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, Canada. The purpose of this report is to estimate the noise impact of the proposed Facility and to provide noise mitigation recommendations where necessary.

As Manitoba does not have any notable noise guidelines, and the RM of Portage la Prairie does not have a noise by-law, various Canadian and international standards were reviewed for applicability to this project. This resulted in a combination of International standard ISO 19961 and Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOECC) Guideline NPC-300 standards.

Five residential dwellings have been identified as being representative of the noise sensitive land uses/areas (NSA) in the vicinity of the Facility.

The Facility is predicted to have low noise impact at two of the assessed noise sensitive areas. The dominant noise source is the Raw Material Receiving, Storing and Pre-Processing Building. Modelling of these buildings was based on preliminary estimates that are anticipated to be higher than actual as-built noise levels (i.e. conservatively estimated).

Should the detailed design introduce equipment or configurations that might exceed these conservative estimates, the noise model may need to be reassessed. Noise from the Facility will be managed with a Noise Management Plan.

The Noise Management Plan shall ensure that the Facility has a noise impact classification of low to none, and commit to address any noise complaints that may arise.

1 ISO/R 1996-1971 – Assessment of Noise to Community Response

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Facility Description ...... 2 3. Noise Source Summary...... 3 4. Points of Reception ...... 4 5. Assessment Criteria ...... 5 6. Impact Assessment ...... 6 7. Discussion ...... 7 8. Conclusions ...... 8 9. References ...... 9

Figures

Figure 1 – Land Use Zoning Figure 2 – Site Plan - Roquette Provided Data Figure 3 – Noise Source Locations Figure 4 – Receptor Locations

Tables

Table 1: Assessed Points of Reception ...... 4 Table 2: Perceived Impact of Increased Sound Levels ...... 5 Table 3: Minimum MOECC Sound Level Limits for Class 3 (Rural) Areas ...... 5 Table 4: Acoustic Assessment Summary Table ...... 6

Appendices

Appendix D1: Noise Terminology Appendix D2: Instrumentation

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study

1. Introduction

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was retained by Roquette Canada Ltd. (“Roquette”) to prepare a Noise Impact Study to inform the Environmental Assessment for the Portage Pea Project. The Portage Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”) is located on Road 65 N, east of the Road 41 W and Road 65 N intersection, in the Rural Municipality (RM) of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, Canada.

The purpose of this report is to estimate the noise impact of the proposed Facility and to provide noise mitigation recommendations where necessary. Appendix D1 provides the noise terminology that is used in this report.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 1 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study 2. Facility Description

The Facility is located on the northeast corner of the Road 65 N and Road 41 W intersection in the RM of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. The Facility processes yellow peas into various products including starches, and is planned to operate 24 hours per day, seven days a week.

The land surrounding the Facility is zoned for industrial and agricultural purposes as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 presents a site plan of the Facility.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 2 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study 3. Noise Source Summary

Facility noise source emissions have been modelled using sound measurements, ASHRAE fan sound level predictions, manufacturer sound level data from similar projects, and noise source information provided by Roquette. The Roquette provided noise source information and site plan is provided in Figure 2, and modelled noise source locations are provided in Figure 3. The modelled outdoor noise sources from the Facility include:

x Make up air units; x Exhaust fans; x Loading bay doors; x Air conditioning units; x Dust collectors/de-dusters; x Trucks; x HVAC units; x Steam boilers; and x Dryer building noise.

Note that where specific noise source data was not available, the general building was modelled as equally radiating noise from all surfaces of the building. The noise source information was provided by Roquette as overall A-weighted sound pressure levels from measurements of similar buildings at a Roquette facility in .

The model includes three different representations of noise generating sources: point sources (e.g. the exhaust of a piece of equipment); area sources (e.g. the noise emanating from a building facade); and line sources (e.g. truck traffic). Noise data from buildings with no specific source data was provided by Roquette as overall sound pressure levels at a specified distance. Roquette has noted that these measurements were from the loudest portion of the buildings. The calculated sound power level from the measurements were applied to area sources modelled along the building faces, as data is not yet available to model individual noise sources on the sides and roof of the buildings. This is a conservative approach as the majority of the buildings will not be emitting as much noise as the loudest portion of the buildings.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 3 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study 4. Points of Reception

Five residential dwellings have been identified as being representative of the noise sensitive land uses/areas2 (NSA) in the vicinity of the Facility. Plane of Window and Outdoor (e.g. backyard) Points of Reception (PORs) were assessed at each location as follows:

x Plane of Window (denoted with a “PoW” suffix) – A point in space corresponding with the centre location of a first storey window, at a height of 1.5 metres above grade; or a second storey window, at a height of 4.5 metres above grade; or the height of the vertical midpoint of the most exposed storey for a high rise multi-unit building. x Outdoor (denoted with an “Out” suffix) – A point in space within 30 metres of the dwelling, at a height of 1.5 metres above grade.

Figure 4 presents the POR locations relative to the Facility. Table 1 describes each POR locations at each NSA.

Table 1: Assessed Points of Reception

Noise Distance to Point of Point of Reception Point of Reception Sensitive Nearest Facility Location Reception ID Location Description Area Property Line (m)

Second storey window of NSA1 – Directly south of the R01_PoW 1257 Plane of W indow detached home, at a height Road 41W Facility, east of Road 41W. Residence of 4.5 m (South of Side yard of dwelling, at a Directly south of the R01_Out 1243 Outdoor Facility) height of 1.5 m Facility, east of Road 41W.

Second storey window of NSA2 – Directly west of the Facility, R02_PoW 1947 Plane of W indow detached home, at a height Munro Road east of Munro Road. Residence of 4.5 m (W est of Side yard of dwelling, at a Directly west of the Facility, R02_Out 1931 Outdoor Facility) height of 1.5 m east of Munro Road.

NSA3 – Second storey window of Northwest of the Facility, TransCanada R03_PoW 1728 Plane of W indow detached home, at a height North of the TransCanada Highway of 4.5 m highway. Residence Northwest of the Facility, Front Yard of dwelling, at a (North of R03_Out 1713 Outdoor North of the TransCanada height of 1.5 m Facility) highway.

Second storey window of NSA4 – North of the Facility, west R04_PoW 2469 Plane of W indow detached home, at a height Road 41W of Road 41W. Residence of 4.5 m (North of Front Yard of dwelling, at a North of the Facility, west R04_Out 2476 Outdoor Facility) height of 1.5 m of Road 41W.

NSA5 – Second storey window of Northeast of the Facility, TransCanada R05_PoW 1243 Plane of W indow detached home, at a height south of the TransCanada Highway of 4.5 m highway. Residence Northeast of the Facility, Front Yard of dwelling, at a (Northeast of R05_Out 1235 Outdoor south of the TransCanada height of 1.5 m Facility) highway.

2 Noise sensitive spaces are typically living and sleeping quarters of dwellings, or sleeping quarters of noise sensitive commercial or institutional land uses.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 4 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study 5. Assessment Criteria

As Manitoba does not have any notable noise guidelines, and the RM of Portage la Prairie does not have a noise by- law, noise criteria from international standards and other Canadian jurisdictions were considered, including Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia noise guidelines.

The majority of the reviewed noise guidelines contained a hard noise level limit irrespective of existing background noise. This could result in a noise impact much higher than the existing conditions. Since ISO 1996-1971 (Reference 2) contains a limit relative to background noise, this was adopted as the primary criteria in this assessment. An estimated community response to noise with respect to noise impact is presented in Table 2.

ISO/R 1996-1971 notes that noise levels up to 5 dB above criterion are of marginal significance. This is in line with other guidelines which contain relative noise components. Thus, the 5dB above criterion limit was adopted as the threshold for mitigation.

Table 2: Perceived Impact of Increased Sound Levels3

Increased Sound Level Above Criterion Category Estimated Community Response Level (dB)

0 None No Observed Reaction

5 Low Sporadic Complaints

10 Medium Widespread Complaints

15 Strong Threats of community action

20 Very Strong Vigorous community action

As existing noise levels were unavailable, guidelines from other jurisdictions were reviewed for a base level for assessment. This review indicated that Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Guideline NPC-300 has the most conservative noise level limits for rural areas.

NPC-300 defines sound level limits for plane of window and outdoor points of reception in rural (Class 3) areas. These are summarized in Table 3, and have been adopted as the basis of assessment. Note that actual background noise levels may differ from the adopted basis levels, so operational impacts may differ from the predicted impacts.

Table 3: Minimum MOECC Sound Level Limits for Class 3 (Rural) Areas

Stationary Sources Minimum Time Period Point of Reception Location Sound Level Limit (One Hour Leq, dBA) Daytime (7AM to 7PM) Plane of W indow 45 Evening (7PM to 11PM) Plane of W indow 40 Night time (11PM to 7AM) Plane of W indow 40 Daytime (7AM to 7PM) Outdoor Living Space 45 Evening (7PM to 11PM) Outdoor Living Space 40 Night time (11PM to 7AM) Outdoor Living Space -

3 Adapted from ISO/R 1996-1971 (E) - Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 5 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study 6. Impact Assessment

The sources of noise from the Facility described in Section 3 were used as inputs to the noise impact model. Noise impacts at the identified points of reception were predicted using the ISO 9613-2 (Reference 5) noise prediction algorithm, which is implemented in CadnaA software. The resulting noise impacts at each assessed receptor were then compared with the objective Sound Level Limits described in Section 5.

The noise emissions produced by operations at the Facility were assessed. Table 4 presents noise impacts at each of the identified PORs.

Table 4: Acoustic Assessment Summary Table

One Hour L Predicted One eq Point of Sound Level Change above Point of Time Hour L Reception eq Basis of Ambient Level Perceived Impact Reception ID Noise Level Location Period Assessment (dB) (dBA) (dBA) R01_PoW Plane of W indow Daytime 43 45 - - Evening 43 40 3 Low Night time 43 40 3 Low R01_Out Outdoor Daytime 42 45 - - Evening 42 40 2 Low Night time - - - - R02_PoW Plane of W indow Daytime 36 45 - - Evening 36 40 - - Night time 36 40 - - R02_Out Outdoor Daytime 35 45 - - Evening 35 40 - - Night time - - - - R03_POW Plane of W indow Daytime 38 45 - - Evening 38 40 - - Night time 38 40 - - R03_Out Outdoor Daytime 38 45 - - Evening 38 40 - - Night time - - - - R04_PoW Plane of W indow Daytime 35 45 - - Evening 35 40 - - Night time 35 40 - - R04_Out Outdoor Daytime 34 45 - - Evening 34 40 - - Night time - - - - R05_PoW Plane of W indow Daytime 42 45 - - Evening 42 40 2 Low Night time 42 40 2 Low R05_Out Outdoor Daytime 41 45 - - Evening 41 40 1 Low Night time - - - -

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 6 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study 7. Discussion

As presented in Table 4, a low noise impact is predicted at Receptors R01_Out, R01_POW, R05_Out, and R05_POW during evening and night time hours. The controlling source of noise impact is predicted to be the Raw Material Receiving, Storing, and Pre-Processing building.

Noise data from this building was provided as an overall sound pressure level 1.5 metres from the surfaces of the building. The client has noted that this measurement was from the loudest portion of the building. The calculated sound power level from this measurement was applied to area sources modelled along the building faces, as data is not yet available to model individual noise sources on the sides and roof of the building. This is a conservative approach as the majority of the building will not be emitting as much noise as the loudest portion of the building.

Should the detailed design introduce equipment or configurations that might exceed these conservative estimates, the noise model may need to be reassessed. Noise from the Facility will be managed with a Noise Management Plan.

The Noise Management Plan shall ensure that the Facility has a noise impact classification of low to none, and commit to address any noise complaints that may arise.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 7 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study 8. Conclusions

A noise impact study of the proposed Facility has been completed. Noise levels were assessed using international standard ISO/R 1996-1971 (E), with noise criteria from MOECC NPC-300 guidelines.

The Facility is predicted to have a low noise impact at two of the nearest noise sensitive locations. A Noise Management Plan is recommended.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 8 Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study 9. References

1. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Environmental Noise Guideline Publication NPC- 300: Stationary and Transportation Sources - Approval and Planning, August 2013. 2. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/R 1996-1971 (E), Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response, Switzerland, 1972. 3. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Publication NPC-104: Sound Level Adjustments. 4. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Publication NPC-233: Information to be submitted for Approval of Stationary Sources of Sound, October 1995. 5. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9613-2: Acoustics - Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors Part 2: General Method of Calculation, Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 9

Figures

￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials:

Project First Nation Land Project Site MP - Industrial Poplar Bluff Zone Transportation M - Manufacturing/Industrial Zone Provincial Highway Portage Diversion Rail Line RMH - Residential Mobile Home Zone Zoning RR - Rural Residential Zone AG - Agricultural General Zone AL - Agricultural Limited Zone 300 0 300 600 m CG - Commercial General Zone 1:35,000 CH - Commercial Highway Zone NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © 2010 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2010 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2015-05-26 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\APPENDIX STUDY\G001_60529222_01V1_APPXD_NISLANDUSEZONING.MXD NOISE D - IMPACT Appendix D: Portage Pea Project Land Use Zoning Noise Impact Study Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 1 Last saved by: MAHEC (2017-03-08 ) Last Plotted: 2017-03-08 Project Management Initials: Designer:_____ Checked:_____ Approved: _____ ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\APPENDIX D - NOISE IMPACT STUDY\60529222-FIG-30-0000-H-APPXD_NISNOISE.DWG

N

0 40 80 m 1:2,000

Appendix D: Portage Pea Project Site Plan Noise Impact Study Roquette Provided Data Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 2 Last saved by: MAHEC (2017-03-08 ) Last Plotted: 2017-03-08 Project Management Initials: Designer:_____ Checked:_____ Approved: _____ ANSI B 279.4mm x 431.8mm Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\APPENDIX D - NOISE IMPACT STUDY\60529222-FIG-30-0000-H-APPXD_NISNOISESOURCES.DWG

N

0 40 80 m 1:2,000

Appendix D: Portage Pea Project Noise Source Locations Noise Impact Study Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 3 ￿￿ N ANSI A 215.9mm x 215.9mm 279.4mm A ANSI Project ManagementApproved: Designer: Project Checked:Initials:

Project Project Site

E Point Source

Receptor J" R01 (POW,Out) J" R02 (POW,Out) J" R03 (POW,Out) J" R04 (POW,Out) J" R05 (POW,Out) Transportation Provincial Highway Rail Line

210 0 210 420 m 1:25,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N Service Layer Credits: © 2017 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 GeoEye Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation Last savedLast by: MAHEC (2017-03-08) Last Plotted: 2015-05-26 Filename: U:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\920-929 (GIS-GRAPHICS)\CONFIDENTIAL\H\EAP REPORT\APPENDIX STUDY\G002_60529222_01V1_APPXD_NISRECEPTORLOCATIONS.MXD NOISE D - IMPACT Appendix D: Portage Pea Project Receptor Locations Noise Impact Study Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure: 4

Appendix D1

Noise Terminology

Appendix D1: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study

Noise Terminology

Term Definition Sound Pressure wave travelling through a medium, such as air. Noise Unwanted sound. Acoustics The science of sound propagation and transmission. Decibel, dB A logarithmic ratio, not strictly a unit, used to describe sound levels. For sound pressure, the reference level is 20 micropascals (ȝPa, threshold of hearing). Frequency The rate at which an event is repeated. Measured in Hertz (Hz), where 1 Hz = 1 oscillation/sec. Normal human hearing extends over a range of frequencies from about 20 Hz to about 20 kHz. Octave Band A band of frequencies where the upper limiting frequency is twice the lower limiting frequency. Octave band are identified by their centre-frequencies. The octave bands standardized for acoustic measurements include those centered at 31.5, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, & 8000 Hz. A-Weighting Network, dBA A frequency weighting network intended to represent the variation in the ear’s ability to hear different frequencies. Overall sound levels calculated or measured using the A-weighting network are indicated by dBA rather than dB.

Sound Pressure Level (SPL, Lp ) A measurement of instantaneous sound pressure and equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the instantaneous sound pressure of a sound divided by the reference sound pressure of 20 ȝPa (0 dB). Reported and measured in decibels (dB or dBA).

Leq - “Equivalent sound level” Value of a constant sound pressure level which would result in the same total sound energy as would the measured time-varying sound pressure level over equivalent time duration. The L eq,1hr, for example, describes the equivalent continuous sound level over a 1 hour period.

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 1

Appendix D2

Instrumentation

Appendix D2: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study

Instrumentation

Acoustic Modelling Software: Cadna/A for Windows by Datakustik Version 4.6.153

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 1

Appendix D: Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage Pea Project Noise Impact Study

Brian Bulnes Acoustic Specialist E [email protected]

aecom.com

Prepared for: Roquette Canada Ltd. AECOM 10

Appendix E

Historic Resources Branch Response Letter

DATE: 2017-01-05

TO: Kristiina CUSITAR FROM: Holly COTE Environmental Assessor Municipal Heritage Consultant AECOM Historic Resources Branch 99 Commerce Drive Main Floor – 213 Notre Dame Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba R3P 0Y7 R3B 1N3

PHONE NO: (204) 945-7259 FAX: (204) 948-2384 E-MAIL: [email protected]

SUBJECT: Heritage Screening Request - Food Processing Facility

HRB FILE: AAS-16-11300

Concerns.

Further to your e-mail regarding the above-noted food processing facility, the Historic Resources Branch has examined the location in conjunction with Branch records for areas of potential concern. The potential to impact significant heritage resources has been deemed high in this area, therefore, the Historic Resources Branch has concerns with the project.

Under Section 12(2) of The Heritage Resources Act, if the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage has reason to believe that heritage resources or human remains are known, or thought likely to be present, on lands that are to be developed, then the owner/developer is required to conduct at his/her own expense, a heritage resource impact assessment (HRIA) and mitigation, if necessary, prior to the project’s start.

The developer must contract a qualified archaeological consultant to conduct a Heritage Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) of the proposed development location, in order to identify and assess any heritage resources that may be negatively impacted by development. If desired, the Branch will work with the developer/land owners and its consultant to draw up terms of reference for this project.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (204) 945-7259.

Holly Cote

Appendix F

Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Prepared by: AECOM 99 Commerce Drive 204 477 5381 tel Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3P 0Y7 204 284 2040 fax www.aecom.com

March, 2017 Project Number: 60529222 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

. is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); . represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; . may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; . has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; . must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; . was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and . in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx i AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Distribution List

# Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name

0 1 Roquette Canada Ltd.

Revision History

Revision # Date Revised By: Revision Description

00 6th Feb 2017 01 8th Feb 2017 Dr. Afaf Al Azzawi Comments incorporated

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx ii

AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Executive Summary

AECOM was commissioned by Roquette Canada Ltd. (“Roquette”) to provide a Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) as a part of the Environmental Assessment for the development of a Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”).

The proposed development is located approximately 4 km west of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, south of the TransCanada Highway (Highway No. 1) and west of the Portage Diversion. The proposed development covers a land parcel of 994,457 m2 (10.7M ft2) of area. The site is located in Rural Municipality (RM) of Portage la Prairie.

The general purpose of this report is to estimate future traffic volumes generated by the proposed new development and to predict any potential traffic impacts on the operating conditions of the proposed development on adjacent roadway network. The study identified the key intersections within the study area road network, which could be impacted by the new development.

Recent traffic observations at the key intersections along the Simplot Road (Road 41W) and Highway No.1 were gathered. Background traffic volumes were forecasted to the opening and future years by considering 1.5% annual growth factor.

The number of trips generated by the proposed new development was estimated using the planned operating conditions of the site; this approach will give more realistic estimation to be considered in the analysis stage. A capacity and Level of Service (LOS) analysis was performed using the traffic analysis software Synchro 9.

The existing intersections configuration and traffic control were considered in the analysis. The traffic analysis investigated the opening without and with development (2019), and future without and with development (2029) operating conditions at the key intersections during both morning and afternoon peak hours. The analysis provided the following key findings:

 Under existing traffic conditions, all studied intersections operate at an acceptable level of service during both morning and afternoon peak hours;  Traffic operation performance for the opening year scenario will be at an acceptable level of service;  Traffic operation performance for the forecasted year will be at an acceptable level of service;  No mitigation will be required to the key junction, intersection of Highway No.1 and Simplot Road; and  Due to the low generated traffic volumes and the available reserved capacity of the junctions the proposed new development has no significant impact on the surrounding road network.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx iv

AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Letter of Transmittal Distribution List Executive Summary Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Study Objectives ...... 1 1.3 Study Methodology ...... 1 1.4 Study Area ...... 2 1.5 Planned Development ...... 4 1.6 Study Horizon Years ...... 6

2. Existing Area Condition ...... 7 2.1 Site Accessibility ...... 7 2.2 Simplot Road (Road 41W) ...... 7 2.3 Enns Bros \Simplot Plant Accesses ...... 7 2.4 Road 65N ...... 7 2.5 Site Access Road ...... 7 2.6 Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 9

3. Traffic Forecasting ...... 13 3.1 Site Trip Generation ...... 13 3.2 Background Traffic Growth ...... 13 3.2.1 Natural Traffic Growth ...... 13 3.2.2 Traffic Generated by Planned Developments ...... 14 3.3 Traffic Distribution ...... 14

4. Traffic Analysis ...... 21 4.1 Access Management ...... 21 4.2 Methodologies for Level of Service (LOS) and Capacity Analysis ...... 21 4.2.1 Level of Service (LOS) ...... 21 4.2.2 Volume to Capacity Ratio ...... 22 4.3 Background Operating Condition, Year 2019 ...... 22 4.4 Future Operating Condition at Key Intersections ...... 23 4.5 Site Circulation and Queuing ...... 26 4.6 Pedestrian ...... 27

5. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 28 5.1 Conclusions ...... 28 5.2 Recommendations ...... 28

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx v AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Site Area ...... 3 Figure 1.2 Site Plan ...... 5 Figure 2.1 Key Intersections and Roadway Network of the Study Area ...... 8 Figure 2.2 Year 2017 AM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume (pcuph) ...... 11 Figure 2.3 Year 2017 PM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume (pcuph) ...... 12 Figure 3.1 Year 2019 AM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume at Background Condition (pcuph) ...... 15 Figure 3.2 Year 2019 PM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume at Background Condition (pcuph) ...... 16 Figure 3.3 Year 2019 AM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume at Build out Condition (pcuph) ...... 17 Figure 3.4 Year 2029 PM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume at Build out Condition (pcuph) ...... 18 Figure 3.5 Year 2029 AM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume at Build out Condition (pcuph) ...... 19 Figure 3.6 Year 2029 PM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume Build out Condition (pcuph)...... 20

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Land Use Statistics of Full Build-out of the Facility ...... 4 Table 2.1 Traffic Data along Highway No. 1 (2012 - 2015) ...... 9 Table 2.2 Year 2017 Peak Traffic Count for turning traffic in Simplot Road (Vehicle/hr) ...... 9 Table 4.1 Level of Service Criteria ...... 22 Table 4.2 Year 2019 Background Traffic Analysis ...... 23 Table 4.3 Year 2019 Full Build Out Condition ...... 24 Table 4.4 Year 2029 Full Build Out Condition ...... 25 Table 4.5 On-site Queuing Length (Full Build out 2029) ...... 27

Appendices

Appendix F1. Existing Traffic Counts at the Key Intersections Appendix F2. Synchro Report – Future Scenarios, With and Without Development Appendix F3. Manitoba Infrastructure- Standards

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx vi AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

AECOM was retained by Roquette Canada Ltd. (“Roquette”) to conduct a Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) as a part of the Environmental Assessment for their proposed Pea Processing Facility (“Facility”). The Facility is sited approximately 4 km west of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. The proposed site is located south of the TransCanada Highway (Highway No. 1) and west of the Portage Diversion.

The proposed development covers a land parcel of 994,457 m2 (10.7M ft2) and is located in Rural Municipality (RM) of Portage la Prairie.

The general purpose of this report is to estimate future traffic volumes generated by the proposed new development and to predict its potential traffic impacts on the operating conditions of the proposed development on internal and adjacent roadway infrastructure.

1.2 Study Objectives

The objectives of this study are as follows:

 Review the existing and future development plan and determine the type and size of the various land uses, road networks, and key access points;  Obtain existing AM peak and PM peak hour traffic data at the key intersections of the study area;  Assess existing operational and capacity condition of the key intersections adjacent to the study area;  Determine the site generated trips based on the Operation Plan of the development;  Determine background traffic growth;  Determine trip distribution patterns and assign traffic onto the roadway network;  Evaluate intersections operational performance;  Identify any roadway improvements, such as roadway widening or intersection treatments, necessary to accommodate anticipated traffic growth due to this development;  Determine roadway lane requirements and key intersections geometry; and  Recommend improvements to the adjacent road networks necessary to accommodate the proposed site- generated traffic, as required.

1.3 Study Methodology

The study was conducted according to the following methodology:

 Conduct a review of the site plan of the proposed project, determine the type and size of land uses and access point to the site from the adjoining road network;  Collect existing AM and PM peak traffic data at the Highway No. 1 and other key adjacent roads and intersections;  Collect details of existing roadways and intersection lane configuration, traffic control and other relevant information;  Assess existing operational and capacity condition at the key intersections;  Estimate newly generated trips at full build-out of the proposed site;  Project full build-out traffic during AM and PM peak hours at the key intersection by combining site-generated traffic and background traffic on the road;  Conduct capacity and Level of Service (LOS) analysis for full build-out traffic condition;  Evaluate intersections’ operational performance for the forecasted year horizon; and

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 1 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

 Develop mitigation strategies to reduce the impact from the development, as required.

1.4 Study Area

The proposed project is located in RM of Portage la Prairie Ward 3, south of Highway No.1. The site can be accessed from Highway No. 1 taking an exit at Simplot Road (Road 41W). This area has very low density that characterised by low industrial development along with some farm land. Figure 1.1 shows the land parcel and site area.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 2 ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A ______Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved: Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: SKETCHES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\SITE Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Location Plan Traffic Impact Study Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:1.1 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

1.5 Planned Development

The proposed Facility intends to supply yellow pea products and targets to begin its service by 2019. The Facility will provide employment opportunities for 150 people.

The proposed development is zoned as Industrial Poplar Bluff Zone (MP). The proposed building areas that will make up the Facility are provided in Table 1.1 below.

A site plan of the Facility is shown in Figure 1.2.

Table 1.1 Land Use Statistics of Full Build-out of the Facility

Gross Area Land Use (m2.) Loading Bays and Transfer area 3,672 Raw Material Storage 5,520 Laboratory 864 Maintenance 1,080 Production Unit 12,800 Power Distribution 2,250 Guardhouse and logistics 580 Administration 864 Wastewater Emergency Lagoon 14,500 Staff Parking 3,500 Utility, Power, Maintenance and 13,000 Storage Facility Snow Management Area 26,180 Total 84,810.00

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 4 To HWY 1 ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A

N ______Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved: Road 41W Access Road Simplot Road/

Road 65N Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: SKETCHES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\SITE Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Site Plan Traffic Impact Study Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:1.2 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

1.6 Study Horizon Years

The Facility will be constructed in one phase. The construction phase is anticipated to be two years, with the operation to begin in September 2019. The future year for the purpose of this study will be considered 10 years from the date of operation (September 2019), hence it will be year 2029.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 6 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

2. Existing Area Condition

2.1 Site Accessibility

The study area is located west of City of Portage la Prairie and falls within the RM of Portage la Prairie. The site is accessible from Simplot Road (Road 41W) which has an access from both East Bound (EB) and West Bound (WB) of Highway No.1, and the south service road. Munro Road, which is 1.6 km west of Simplot Road is the alternate route for the site, in case of emergency closure of Simplot Road. Figure 2.1 shows the roadway network in the vicinity of the proposed project.

2.2 Simplot Road (Road 41W)

Simplot Road is a single roadway with two lanes that run northbound and southbound. It is a paved road with total cross section of 12 m inclusive of roadway and shoulder. Simplot Road has an intersection with Highway No.1 at a flared section with designated left and right turn lanes from Highway No.1. The intersection between Simplot Road and Highway No.1 is termed as “Intersection 1” for further reference in this report. It is already serving farm lands and industrial services like Simplot and others. The proposed development has indirect access from Simplot Road, and it is illustrated in Figure 2.1. The intersections along Simplot Road are at Road 65N, Enns Bros /Simplot Plant Accesses and Highway No.1.

2.3 Enns Bros \Simplot Plant Accesses

Road Accesses from Simplot Road to Enns Bros on the west side and to Simplot (food Factory) on the east side are identified as “Intersection 2” as shown in Figure 2.1.

2.4 Road 65N

Road 65N is a gravel road running east-west and turns north towards the Facility access road. Road 65N intersects with Simplot Road and is identified “Intersection 3” in this report (as shown in Figure 2.1).

2.5 Site Access Road

The Facility has an access road from Road 65N. The access road has two separated entrances and exits for light and heavy vehicles. Light vehicle access is to the south of the heavy vehicle access. The intersections of light and heavy vehicles with the access road are termed by “Intersections 4” and “Intersection 5” respectively as illustrated in Figure 2.1.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 7 Highway No. 1

N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A

_____ See Detail A _____ Simplot Road _____

Road 65N

See Detail B Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

Site

North Service Road 41W Road

Highway No. 1

South Service Road Simplot Road

Enns Bros

Simplot Plant Road 65N Simplot Road Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: SKETCHES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\SITE Appendix F: Portage la Prairie Site Access Traffic Impact Study Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:2.1 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

2.6 Existing Traffic Volumes

On Manitoba Highways 2015 were visited to obtain the counted traffic volumes at Highway No.1 near Simplot Road intersection. Station 48, which is 4 km east of Provincial Road 332 site along is Highway No.1 the closest traffic data available to the site. Table 2.1 shows the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AATD) vehicle per day (vpd) for Station 48. The peak hourly volume (PHV) would be in the range of 650 vph based on the assumption that PHV is 10% of the ADDT. However, along the distance between Station 48 and the Simplot Road there are many accesses that would attract and generate traffic and change the peak hourly volume estimate dramatically.

Table 2.1 Traffic Data along Highway No. 1 (2012 - 2015)

Average Annual Daily Traffic, Peak Hourly Volume, PHV Road Name Description AADT (vpd) (vph)* Eastbound 6410 641 Highway No. 1 Westbound 6520 652 *Estimated based on 10% of the AADT.

Since no recent traffic data was available next to Highway No.1 Service Road and Simplot Road, AECOM carried out traffic count on January 11th, 2017, to include both AM and PM peak hours. The traffic count data evaluate turning vehicles from and to Simplot Road to both Highway No.1 and Road Accesses of Enns Bros and Simplot Plant. No traffic was recorded for Intersection 3 during the peak hour counts as there were no any observed traffic movements.

Table 2.2 Year 2017 Peak Traffic Count for turning traffic in Simplot Road (Vehicle/hr)

Westbound Eastbound Northbound Southbound Intersection No. Time (WB) (EB) (NB) (SB)

Direction LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 AM 0 366 22 80 459 1 6 0 48 4 0 1 PM 0 266 10 9 280 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 AM 5 0 0 0 0 36 1 8 1 10 50 7 PM 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 1 23 0 0

PCU CONVERSION: Passenger Car Unit (PCU) and sometimes it is called Passenger Car Equivalency (PCE) is a factor used to convert all vehicle type other than passenger car into passenger car. Usually this factor depends on the physical dimensions, specifically the length, and the operation of the vehicle. It is a common practise to carry on this exercise to unify all vehicles types into one homogenise category. In this study, we have two types of vehicles: passenger car and the truck/semi-trailer. It is assumed:

1 passenger car = 1.0 PCU; and 1 Semi-trailer = 4.0 PCU.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 9 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

The 2017 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes (PCU) at intersection of Highway No. 1 and Simplot Road are illustrated in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 respectively. The details of traffic counts (in vehicles) are enclosed in Appendix F1.

As a note, the traffic counts have been carried out during different times due to resources arrangement. Therefore, slight differences between the approaching traffic to one intersection from the other may have some minor discrepancies. These are noted and found to be to the expected level.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 10 N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A

_____ 1 0 4

Service Road

1 0 684 531

_____ 83 31 Highway No. 1

6 0 57 _____ Service Road

55 13 53

5 45 0 0 0 0 Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

1 8 1 Simplot Road

0 0 0 0 Road 65N

Site 0 0 Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: FIGURES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\TRAFFIC Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Year 2017 AM Peak Hourly Traffic Volume Traffic Impact Study at Existing Condition (pcuph) Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:2.2 N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A Road 41W

_____ 1 0 0

Service Road

2 0 493 515

_____ 12 25 Highway No. 1

4 0 6 _____ Service Road

0 0 26

0 49 0 0 0 0 Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

0 0 1 Simplot Road

0 0 0 0 Road 65N

Site 0 0 Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: FIGURES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\TRAFFIC Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Year 2017 PM Peak Traffic Volume Traffic Impact Study at Existing Condition (pcuph) Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:2.3 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

3. Traffic Forecasting

3.1 Site Trip Generation

The applied methodology for estimating the number of generated trips is by utilizing the site Operation Plan. The following assumptions on site trip generation have been made:

 Staff: 120 vehicles maximum per day (both inbound and outbound);  All employee entry and exit is from Highway No. 1 to Simplot Road;  Total number of Trucks arriving at the site is 75 trucks per day;  80% of raw material/processing and packaging trucks will come from the West along Highway No. 1;  20% of raw material/ processing and packaging trucks will come from the East along Highway No. 1;  The Facility will operate 24/7, 365 days a year;  Final product – 50% East, 50% West; and  Trucks are Rocky Mountain doubles (WB-20).

Based on the above operation details, the ultimate peak hours generated trips from the Facility were estimated as follows:

 A robust assumption that will generate the worse scenario of the three shifts per day: number of employees per morning/evening/ night shifts is 60, 40, 20 respectively;  Assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.0 (only driver for the worst scenario for employee cars), the AM peak hour incoming employee trips would be 60 and outgoing trips would be 20, and the PM peak hour outgoing employee trips would be 60 and incoming employee trips would be 40, considering the same occupancy rate. Night shift will have 20 incoming and 40 outgoing trips;  Consideration will be given to AM and PM peak periods;  Total number of trucks is 75. Assuming the K-factor as 0.15 for robust assumption, which is the proportion of annual average daily traffic occurring in the design hour; the number of trucks traffic during peak hours is expected to be12 trucks per hour. Accordingly, there will be the same number for the in and out movements. Their distribution will be again based on the Operation Plan of the site and the assumptions mentioned earlier in this section.

3.2 Background Traffic Growth

Background traffic growth is an estimation of traffic growth on the adjacent road system of the study area which is expected to occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to overall growth and development of the surrounding region. Figure 3.1 to 3.6 illustrates the traffic volumes by movement of the key intersections. The background traffic consists of two components:

1. Natural growth of existing traffic, and 2. Traffic generated by the planned developments in the vicinity of the study area.

3.2.1 Natural Traffic Growth

In this study an average growth rate of 1.5% was assumed. The background traffic was estimated considering a 1.5% natural growth in traffic Highway No. 1 and Simplot Road.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 13 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

3.2.2 Traffic Generated by Planned Developments

The surrounding area is mainly agriculture with limited industrial operations. There are currently no other future planned developments near the study area. Therefore, no additional in traffic is accounted for other new developments.

3.3 Traffic Distribution

In order to study the impact of the generated traffic by the Facility, trips were distributed and assigned to the roadway systems in a rational approach which is based on the size of the development, its location with regard to the urbanized area, accesses etc., and the operation plan assumptions.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 14 N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A Road 41W

_____ 2 0 5

Service Road

2 0 705 548

_____ 86 32 Highway No. 1

7 0 59 _____ Service Road

57 14 55

6 47 0 0 0 0 Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

2 9 2 Simplot Road

0 0 0 0 Road 65N

Site 0 0 Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: FIGURES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\TRAFFIC Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Year 2019 AM Peak Traffic Volume Traffic Impact Study at Background Condition (pcuph) Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:3.1 N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A Road 41W

_____ 2 0 0

Service Road

3 0 508 531

_____ 13 26 Highway No. 1

5 0 7 _____ Service Road

0 0 27

0 51 0 0 0 0 Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

0 0 2 Simplot Road

0 0 0 0 Road 65N

Site 0 0 Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: FIGURES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\TRAFFIC Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Year 2019 PM Peak Traffic Volume Traffic Impact Study at Background Condition (pcuph) Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:3.2 N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A Road 41W

_____ 2 0 5

Service Road

2 0 705 548

_____ 142 81 Highway No. 1

44 0 87 _____ Service Road

57 119 55

6 47 0 0 0 0 Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

2 74 2

0 0

0 45 Simplot Road

0 45 45 0 0 20

45 60

0 105 65 0 Road 65N

Site 0 0 Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: FIGURES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\TRAFFIC Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Year 2019 AM Peak Traffic Volume Traffic Impact Study at Build Out Condition (pcuph) Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:3.3 N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A Road 41W

_____ 2 0 0

Service Road

3 0 508 531

_____ 55 69 Highway No. 1

54 0 63 _____ Service Road

0 67 27

0 51 0 0 0 0 Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

0 105 2

0 0

0 45 Simplot Road

0 45 45 0 0 60

45 40

0 85 105 0 Road 65N

Site 0 0 Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: FIGURES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\TRAFFIC Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Year 2019 PM Peak Traffic Volume Traffic Impact Study at Build Out Condition (pcuph) Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:3.4 N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A Road 41W

_____ 2 0 5

Service Road

2 0 818 635

_____ 156 87 Highway No. 1

45 0 97 _____ Service Road

66 121 64

6 54 0 0 0 0 Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

2 75 2

0 0

0 45 Simplot Road

0 45 45 0 0 20

45 60

0 105 65 0 Road 65N

Site 0 0 Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: FIGURES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\TRAFFIC Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Year 2029 AM Peak Traffic Condition Traffic Impact Study at Build Out Condition (pcuph) Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:3.5 N ANSI A 215.9mm x 279.4mm ANSI A Road 41W

_____ 2 0 0

Service Road

3 0 590 616

_____ 57 73 Highway No. 1

54 0 64 _____ Service Road

0 85 32

0 59 0 0 0 0 Project Management Initials:Project Designer: Checked: Approved:

0 105 2

0 0

0 45 Simplot Road

0 45 45 0 0 60

45 40

0 85 105 0 Road 65N

Site 0 0 Last saved by: Last saved DHUNGANAM(2017-03-13) Last Plotted: 2017-03-13 Filename: Filename: FIGURES.DWG P:\60529222\900-CAD_GIS\910-CAD\25-SKETCHES\_CT\TRAFFIC Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Year 2029 PM Peak Traffic Condition Traffic Impact Study at Build Out Condition (pcuph) Roquette Canada Ltd. Portage la Prairie, Manitoba Figure:3.6 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

4. Traffic Analysis

4.1 Access Management

The Facility is accessible from Highway No.1 via Simplot Road (Road 41W) as shown in Figure 2.1. Manitoba Infrastructure (MI) has developed policies and procedures and established practices for managing access to the industrial sites in the province of which is the Roadside Management Manual that provides the primary guiding with consistent interpretation, and application of policies and procedures.

The access is designed for a Design Vehicle WB-20 type. MI typical industrial/commercial access treatment provides safe turning movement for large trucks. The access is designed according to the standard plan shown in Appendix F3.

4.2 Methodologies for Level of Service (LOS) and Capacity Analysis

This section identifies the methodology for Level of Service (LOS) and capacity analysis used in this study.

4.2.1 Level of Service (LOS)

The LOS of each intersection’s movement is based on the amount of delay experienced by vehicles making that movement and is expressed in seconds/vehicle. Based on the delay, a letter grade is assigned to the individual movement. Generally, a LOS of ‘D’ (LOS-D) is the lowest acceptable LOS for a given turning movement within an intersection when analyzing short-term planning horizons, while LOS-E is the lowest acceptable LOS for long-term planning horizons. LOS-F means the intersection is failing to maintain an acceptable LOS. Movements experiencing LOS-E or LOS-F in short-term or long-term planning, usually require improvements to reduce delays.

An exception to this guideline is in situations where the affected traffic movement has a relatively small volume compared to other movements within the same intersection.

The key junctions within the study area are all controlled by priority rule; therefore, Table 4.1 summarizes the LOS criteria for un-signalized intersections as per the Highway Capacity Manual (2010). For stop controlled intersections, the LOS is based on the estimated average delay per vehicle among all traffic passing through the intersection.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 21 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Table 4.1 Level of Service Criteria

Average Delay, Second per Vehicle Level of Service (sec/veh) (LOS) Un-Signalized Intersection A 0.0 -10.0 B 10.1-15.0 C 15.1-25.0 D 25.1-35.0 E (Capacity) 35.1-50.0 F (Failure) > 50

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. December, 2010.

4.2.2 Volume to Capacity Ratio

The Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratio is another measure of capacity of intersection operations. The V/C is defined as the ratio of flow rate to capacity for a transportation facility. The higher the value, the more congestion is experienced by motorists. A V/C ratio less than 0.85 generally indicate that adequate capacity is available and vehicles are not expected to experience significant queues and delays. A V/C ratio between 0.85 and 0.95 generally indicates that the intersection is operating near its capacity. Higher delays may be expected, but continuously increasing queues should not occur. As the V/C ratio approaches 1.0, traffic flow may become unstable, and delays and queuing conditions may occur. At some intersections, if the V/C ratio exceeds 0.85, mitigation measures in the form of the addition of lane capacity and/or signal timing/phasing adjustments will be provided and an engineering justification will be provided for any acceptable higher value of V/C ratio.

4.3 Background Operating Condition, Year 2019

Evaluation of the existing traffic condition, year 2017 is believed to reflect a very acceptable LOS and negligible delays for all approaches at the selected key intersection, therefore the next analysis level, year 2019 is considered. Only the background traffic as determined by factoring the existing year 2017 traffic volumes is considered. The capacity and LOS analysis were performed using Synchro 9 (an industry-standard traffic analysis software), which uses the methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (2010). The analysis was based on current traffic controls and lane configurations at the studied intersections. Table 4.2 illustrates the performance of the intersection under existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. Background data represents total traffic flows in the area as abstracted from the traffic count. Generally, all intersections show a very good performance. Overall, the intersections have a LOS-A. Level of Service (LOS) is A. The reason for excluding Road 65N and Simplot Road (Intersection 3) from this analysis is because no traffic volumes we recorded during the 2017 surveys and therefore it is anticipated to have insignificant flows and impact in year 2019. Detailed outputs from Synchro analysis are contained in Appendix F2.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 22 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Table 4.2 Year 2019 Background Traffic Analysis

Peak Measure of Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Hour Effectiveness LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Highway No. 1 and Simplot Road (Intersection 1) Volume (pcuph) 0 548 32 86 705 2 7 0 59 5 0 2 V/C 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.10 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.02 AM Approach LOS A A B C PEAK HCM LOS A ICU LOS / ICU A / 53.1% Volume (pcuph) 0 531 26 13 508 3 5 0 7 0 2 2 V/C 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.013 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM Approach LOS A A B B PEAK HCM LOS A ICU LOS / ICU A / 33.1% Simplot Road and Enns Bros\Simplot Plant Road Accesses (Intersection 2) Volume (pcuph) 6 0 0 0 0 47 2 9 2 55 14 57 V/C 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 AM Approach LOS B A A A PEAK HCM LOS A ICU LOS / ICU A / 24.8% Volume (pcuph) 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 2 27 0 0 V/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 PM Approach LOS A A A A PEAK HCM LOS A ICU LOS / ICU A / 13.5%

4.4 Future Operating Condition at Key Intersections

Assessment of the impact of the full build-out of the Pea Processing Facility would require conducting the capacity and LOS analysis for the three intersections, as shown earlier in Figure 2.1. The analysis is carried out for various scenarios to evaluate the impact of the proposed development on the existing roadway. It includes analysis for background year 2019, combined background and site generated traffic year 2019, background traffic year 2029, and combined background and site generated traffic conditions year 2019.

The analysis was conducted assuming the existing lane geometry and lane configuration will remain unchanged.

The summary of the analysis results is presented in Table 4.3, Table 4.4 and Table 4.5. Details of the Synchro output are enclosed in Appendix F3.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 23 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Table 4.3 Year 2019 Full Build Out Condition

Peak Measure of Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Hour Effectiveness LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Highway No. 1 and Simplot Road (Intersection 1) Volume (pcuph) 0 548 81 142 705 2 44 0 87 5 0 2 AM V/C 0.00 0.23 0.05 0.17 0.23 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.03 0.03 PEAK Approach LOS A A C C ICU LOS / ICU B / 57.3% Volume (pcuph) 0 531 69 55 508 3 54 0 63 0 0 2 PM V/C 0.00 0.23 0.04 0.07 0.16 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 PEAK Approach LOS A A B B ICU LOS / ICU B / 56.4% Simplot Road and Enns Bros\Simplot plant Road Accesses (Intersection 2) Volume (pcuph) 6 0 0 0 0 47 2 74 2 55 119 231 AM V/C 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 PEAK Approach LOS B A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 30.9% Volume (pcuph) 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 105 2 27 67 0 PM V/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 PEAK Approach LOS A A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 22.0% Road 65N and Simplot Road (Intersection 3) Volume (pcuph) 0 0 65 0 0 0 105 0 0 AM V/C 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 PEAK Approach LOS A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 17.7% Volume (pcuph) 0 0 105 0 0 0 85 0 0 PM V/C 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 PEAK Approach LOS A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 19.2% Project Access for Light Vehicle (Intersection 4) Volume (pcuph) 20 - 0 - 45 60 0 45 - V/C 0.03 - 0.03 - 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 - AM PEAK Approach LOS A A A

ICU LOS / ICU A / 16.8%

Volume (pcuph) 60 - 0 - 45 40 0 45 - PM V/C 0.07 - 0.07 - 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 - PEAK Approach LOS A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 15.8%

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 24 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Peak Measure of Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Hour Effectiveness LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Project Access for Heavy Vehicle (Intersection 5) Volume (pcuph) 45 - 0 - 0 45 0 0 - AM V/C 0.06 - 0.06 - 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 - PEAK Approach LOS A A - ICU LOS / ICU A / 13.3% Volume (pcuph) 45 - 0 - 0 45 0 0 - PM 0.06 - 0.06 - 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 - PEAK Approach LOS A A - ICU LOS / ICU A / 13.3%

Table 4.4 Year 2029 Full Build Out Condition

Peak Measure of Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Hour Effectiveness LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Highway No. 1 and Simplot Road (Intersection 1) Volume (pcuph) 0 635 87 156 818 2 45 0 97 5 0 2 AM V/C 0.00 0.27 0.06 0.21 0.26 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.04 0.04 PEAK Approach LOS B B C D ICU LOS / ICU C/64.2% Volume (pcuph) 0 616 73 57 590 3 54 0 64 0 0 2 PM V/C 0.00 0.26 0.05 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 PEAK Approach LOS A A C B ICU LOS / ICU B / 61.7% Simplot Road and Enns Bros\Simplot Plant Road Accesses (Intersection 2) Volume (pcuph) 6 0 0 0 0 54 2 75 2 64 151 66 AM V/C 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 PEAK Approach LOS B A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 32.2% Volume (pcuph) 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 105 2 32 85 0 PM V/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.6 0.6 0.6 PEAK Approach LOS A A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 17.1% Road 65N and Simplot Road (Intersection 3) Volume (pcuph) 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 105 AM V/C 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 PEAK Approach LOS A - A ICU LOS / ICU A / 17.7% Volume (pcuph) 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 85 PM V/C 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 PEAK Approach LOS A - A ICU LOS / ICU A / 19.2%

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 25 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Peak Measure of Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Hour Effectiveness LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Project Access for Heavy Vehicle (Intersection 4) Volume (pcuph) 20 - 0 - 45 60 - 0 45 AM V/C 0.03 - 0.03 - 0.07 0.07 - 0.00 0.00 PEAK Approach LOS A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 16.8% Volume (pcuph) 60 - 0 - 45 40 - 0 45 PM V/C 0.07 - 0.07 - 0.05 0.05 - 0.00 0.00 PEAK Approach LOS A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 15.8% Project Access for Light Vehicle (Intersection 5) Volume (pcuph) 45 - 0 - 0 45 - 0 0 AM V/C 0.06 - 0.06 - 0.06 0.06 - 0.00 0.00 PEAK Approach LOS A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 13.3% Volume (pcuph) 45 - 0 - 0 45 - 0 0 PM V/C 0.06 - 0.06 - 0.03 0.03 - 0.00 0.00 PEAK Approach LOS A A A ICU LOS / ICU A / 13.3%

The results of the capacity and LOS analysis show that there is no capacity or LOS issues at the Highway No.1 and Simplot Road intersection. The existing lane configuration serves for the future scenario with high reserved capacity even when the proposed development takes place. The site generated traffic from the proposed Facility will have insignificant impact on the Service Road and Simplot Road intersection. Likewise, there is minimal impact on the LOS of Simplot Road and Road 65N. The existing roads perform below the full capacity; therefore, no further intersection treatment is required.

The site entrance/exit by type of vehicle which are represented by Intersections 4 and 5 also perform at LOS-A. Site circulating and internal queues analyses will be undertaken as part of the Detailed Engineering of the project.

4.5 Site Circulation and Queuing

The on-site traffic is insignificant for operation analysis, however for evaluation completion the two entrance/exit accesses (Intersections 4 and 5) are evaluated along with other Intersections 1, 2, and 3. Using Synchro 9 the intersections are analysed to verify 95th Percentile Queuing lengths and are populated in Table 4.8. The full build out (worst-case) scenario was only evaluated to check the queuing lengths, obviously, if it works then all other scenarios will be operating with lower queuing length.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 26 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

Table 4.5 On-site Queuing Length (Full Build out 2029)

Queue Length 95th (m) Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Peak Hour Number (EB) (WB) (NB) (SB) LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 13.7 13.7 13.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 PM 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 AM 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 2 PM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 AM 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.4 3* PM 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5

AM 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4* PM 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

AM 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5* PM 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* Shared lane for all movements The site generated traffic does not have significant queuing on all abovementioned five intersections. Since the development has negligible impact on existing and proposed accesses, no further warrants are required to be investigated.

4.6 Pedestrian

Pedestrian paths are considered as essential components of the people movement facilities as they provide safety and convenience for street users. Normally, they are called as Walkways and Sidewalks. Normally, they are separated from motor vehicle traffic and typically do not allow bicycles or users other than pedestrians. These facilities are often constructed to serve pedestrians on city streets, within big developments of mixed use, and other locations.

However, for the current site that has industrial nature and located in rural areas it is believed no need for such consideration outside of the site. For the internal movements within the site it is anticipated that all employees will be adequately educated about safety requirements. Also, consideration is given to the separation between parking areas for light vehicles (employees’ car park) and the heavy vehicles (semitrailers truck) to ensure the on-site homogenies traffic movements and to eliminate the conflicts potential between different vehicle types and operation.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 27 AECOM Roquette Canada Ltd. Appendix F: Portage Pea Project Traffic Impact Study

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The following report provides an evaluation of the impact of incorporating the proposed Facility on the surrounding road network.

5.1 Conclusions

The work carried out in this Traffic Impact Study Report revealed the following conclusions:

 The site generated trips for the AM peak hour are: incoming traffic 60 vehicles and 12 trucks, the outgoing is 20 vehicles and 12 trucks;  The site generated trips for the PM peak hour are: incoming 40 vehicles and 12 trucks, the outgoing is 60 vehicles and 12 trucks;  Background traffic is evaluated based on the traffic count data;  Traffic volumes and current intersections’ layout at Highway No.1 / Simplot Road, Simplot Road and Enns Bros/ Simplot Plant Road Accesses, and Simplot Road / Road 65N operate at an acceptable LOS during both morning and afternoon peak hours for the build out conditions; and  The Highway No.1 and Simplot Road Intersection 1 has adequate reserved capacity to handle the new development trips at the future scenarios.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the projected increase in traffic, the current study recommends no mitigation is required to accommodate the proposed Facility traffic. However, these recommendations should be re-evaluated should the Facility undergo expansions that result in an increase in traffic.

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 28

Appendix F1

Existing Traffic Counts at Key Intersections

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx 2017 Traffic Counts - Intersection 1 PTH 1 & Simplot Road (Road 41W) Road 41W Assume Annual Growth @: 1.50% 1.015 1 0 4 MORNING DATA 2yrs (2017-2019) Growth Factor: 1.03

Peak Time 7:45- EB WB NB SB Grand 8:45 AM LTR TotalLT RTotalLT RTotalLT RTotal Total PTH 1 0 1 PC 0 311 19 330 79 384 1 464 6 0 45 51 4 0 1 5 850 531 684 Semi-Trailers 0 55 3 58 1 75 0 76 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 137 31 83 PCU 0 531 31 562 83 684 1 768 6 0 57 63 4 0 1 5 1398

6 0 57 Simplot Road

Road 41W 1 0 0 AFTERNOON DATA

Peak Time 6:30- EB WB NB SB Grand 7:30 PM LTR TotalLT RTotalLT RTotalLT RTotal Total 0 2 PC 0 183 5 188 8 209 2 219 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 410 PTH 1 515 493 Semi-Trailers 0 83 5 88 1 71 0 72 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 162 25 12 PCU 0 515 25 540 12 493 2 507 4 0 6 10 0 0 1 1 1058

4 0 6 Simplot Road 2017 Traffic Counts - Intersection 2 Simplot Road (Road 41W) & Enns Brothers Access/Simplot Plant Simplot Road 55 13 53 MORNING DATA

Peak Time 7:30- EB WB NB SB Grand 8:30 AM LTR TotalLT RTotalLT RTotalLT RTotal Total 5 45 PC 5 0 0 5 0 0 33 33 1 8 1 10 49 5 55 109 157 Service Rd 0 0 Service Rd Semi-Trailers 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 6 0 0 PCU 5 0 0 5 0 0 45 45 1 8 1 10 53 13 55 121 181

1 8 1 Simplot Road

Simplot Road 0 0 26 AFTERNOON DATA

Peak Time 6:30- EB WB NB SB Grand 7:30 PM LTR TotalLT RTotalLT RTotalLT RTotal Total 0 49 PC 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 41 0 0 1 1 22 0 0 22 64 Service Rd 0 0 Service Rd Semi-Trailers 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 PCU 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 49 0 0 1 1 26 0 0 26 76

0 0 1 Simplot Road

Appendix F2

Synchro Report Future Scenarios: with and without the Facility

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Background AM 1: Simplot Rd & PTH 1 02/02/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 548 32 86 705 2 7 0 59 5 0 2 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 548 32 86 705 2 7 0 59 5 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 596 35 93 766 2 8 0 64 5 0 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 768 631 1167 1550 298 1314 1583 383 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 596 596 952 952 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 571 954 362 631 vCu, unblocked vol 768 631 1167 1550 298 1314 1583 383 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.6 5.6 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 90 98 100 91 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 829 934 327 262 692 231 250 618 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 199 397 35 93 383 383 2 72 7 Volume Left 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 8 5 Volume Right 0 0 35 0 0 0 2 64 2 cSH 829 1700 1700 934 1700 1700 1700 616 281 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.02 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 18.1 Lane LOS A BC Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 11.6 18.1 Approach LOS BC Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Background AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Background AM 2: Simplot Rd & Access 02/02/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 0 0 0 0 47 2 9 2 55 14 57 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 0 0 0 0 47 2 9 2 55 14 57 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 0 0 0 0 51 2 10 2 60 15 62 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 232 182 46 181 212 11 77 12 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 232 182 46 181 212 11 77 12 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 100 100 100 95 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 664 681 1018 753 655 1064 1509 1594 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 7 0 51 14 137 Volume Left 7 0 0 2 60 Volume Right 0 0 51 2 62 cSH 664 1700 1064 1509 1594 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 Control Delay (s) 10.5 0.0 8.6 1.1 3.4 Lane LOS BAAAA Approach Delay (s) 10.5 8.6 1.1 3.4 Approach LOS BA Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Background AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Background AM 3: Simplot Rd & Road 65N 02/02/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 000000000000 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1018 892 1079 1018 892 1079 1610 1610 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 0 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS AA Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Background AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Background PM 1: Simplot Rd & PTH 1 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 531 26 13 508 3 5 0 7 0 0 2 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 531 26 13 508 3 5 0 7 0 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 577 28 14 552 3 5 0 8 0 0 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 555 605 883 1160 288 876 1185 276 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 577 577 580 580 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 306 583 296 605 vCu, unblocked vol 555 605 883 1160 288 876 1185 276 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.6 5.6 6.6 5.6 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 100 99 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 998 955 417 380 702 412 369 715 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 192 385 28 14 276 276 3 13 2 Volume Left 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 5 0 Volume Right 0 0 28 0 0 0 3 8 2 cSH 998 1700 1700 955 1700 1700 1700 556 715 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 10.0 Lane LOS A BB Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 11.6 10.0 Approach LOS BB Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Background PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Background PM 2: Simplot Rd & Access 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 2 27 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 2 27 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 2 29 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 114 60 0 59 59 1 0 2 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 114 60 0 59 59 1 0 2 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 95 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 803 812 1079 919 813 1078 1610 1607 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 55 2 29 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 29 Volume Right 0 0 55 2 0 cSH 1700 1700 1078 1610 1607 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 7.3 Lane LOS AAA A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 8.5 0.0 7.3 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 7.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Background PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Background PM 3: Simplot Rd & Road 65N 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 000000000000 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tC, single (s) 7.3 6.8 6.5 7.3 6.8 6.5 4.3 4.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.7 4.2 3.5 3.7 4.2 3.5 2.4 2.4 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 966 852 1021 966 852 1021 1485 1485 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 0 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS AA Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Background PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out AM 1: Simplot Rd & PTH 1 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 548 81 142 705 2 44 0 87 5 0 2 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 548 81 142 705 2 44 0 87 5 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 596 88 154 766 2 48 0 95 5 0 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 768 684 1289 1672 298 1467 1758 383 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 596 596 1074 1074 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 693 1076 393 684 vCu, unblocked vol 768 684 1289 1672 298 1467 1758 383 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.6 5.6 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 83 83 100 86 97 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 829 892 275 218 692 177 196 618 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 199 397 88 154 383 383 2 143 7 Volume Left 0 0 0 154 0 0 0 48 5 Volume Right 0 0 88 0 0 0 2 95 2 cSH 829 1700 1700 892 1700 1700 1700 458 222 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.23 0.05 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.31 0.03 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.8 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 21.7 Lane LOS A CC Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 16.4 21.7 Approach LOS CC Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out AM 2: Simplot Rd & Access 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 0 0 0 0 47 2 74 2 55 119 57 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 0 0 0 0 47 2 74 2 55 119 57 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 0 0 0 0 51 2 80 2 60 129 62 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 416 366 160 365 396 81 191 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 416 366 160 365 396 81 191 82 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 100 100 100 95 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 499 536 880 569 516 973 1371 1503 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 7 0 51 84 251 Volume Left 7 0 0 2 60 Volume Right 0 0 51 2 62 cSH 499 1700 973 1371 1503 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.0 Control Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 8.9 0.2 2.0 Lane LOS BAAAA Approach Delay (s) 12.3 8.9 0.2 2.0 Approach LOS BA Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out AM 3: Simplot Rd & Road 65N 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 105 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 105 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 114 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 299 228 0 228 228 0 0 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 299 228 0 228 228 0 0 0 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.7 4.1 4.6 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.8 2.2 2.7 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 93 100 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 563 612 1079 677 612 960 1610 1358 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 71 0 114 Volume Left 0 0 0 114 Volume Right 0 71 0 0 cSH 1700 960 1700 1358 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 1.9 0.0 2.2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 9.0 0.0 7.9 Lane LOS AA A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 9.0 0.0 7.9 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 8.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out AM 4: Access Road & Light Veh Access 02/03/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 0 45 60 0 45 Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 0 45 60 0 45 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 0 49 65 0 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 130 82 114 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 130 82 114 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 859 973 1463 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 114 49 Volume Left 22 0 0 Volume Right 0 65 0 cSH 859 1700 1463 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.07 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.6 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out AM 5: Access Road & Heavy Veh Access 02/03/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 0 0 45 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 45 0 0 45 0 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 49 0 0 49 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 24 24 49 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 24 24 49 tC, single (s) 7.4 7.2 5.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.4 4.2 3.1 p0 queue free % 94 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 790 828 1106 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 49 49 0 Volume Left 49 0 0 Volume Right 0 49 0 cSH 790 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.03 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.6 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out PM 1: Simplot Rd & PTH 1 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 531 69 55 508 3 54 0 63 0 0 2 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 531 69 55 508 3 54 0 63 0 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 577 75 60 552 3 59 0 68 0 0 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 555 652 975 1252 288 1028 1324 276 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 577 577 672 672 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 398 675 356 652 vCu, unblocked vol 555 652 975 1252 288 1028 1324 276 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.6 5.6 6.6 5.6 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 93 85 100 90 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 998 917 388 344 702 329 311 715 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 192 385 75 60 276 276 3 127 2 Volume Left 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 59 0 Volume Right 0 0 75 0 0 0 3 68 2 cSH 998 1700 1700 917 1700 1700 1700 510 715 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.23 0.04 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.25 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 10.0 Lane LOS A BB Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 14.4 10.0 Approach LOS BB Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out PM 2: Simplot Rd & Access 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 105 2 27 67 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 105 2 27 67 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 114 2 29 73 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 301 247 73 246 246 115 73 116 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 301 247 73 246 246 115 73 116 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 94 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 600 639 983 693 640 932 1514 1460 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 55 116 102 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 29 Volume Right 0 0 55 2 0 cSH 1700 1700 932 1514 1460 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 2.2 Lane LOS AAA A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 9.1 0.0 2.2 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out PM 3: Simplot Rd & Road 65N 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 85 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 85 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 92 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 298 184 0 184 184 0 0 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 298 184 0 184 184 0 0 0 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.7 4.1 4.6 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.8 2.2 2.7 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 88 100 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 543 659 1079 733 659 960 1610 1358 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 114 0 92 Volume Left 0 0 0 92 Volume Right 0 114 0 0 cSH 1700 960 1700 1358 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.07 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.7 Control Delay (s) 0.0 9.3 0.0 7.8 Lane LOS AA A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 9.3 0.0 7.8 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 8.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out PM 4: Access Road & Light Veh Access 02/03/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 0 45 40 0 45 Future Volume (Veh/h) 60 0 45 40 0 45 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 65 0 49 43 0 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 120 70 92 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 120 70 92 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 871 987 1490 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 65 92 49 Volume Left 65 0 0 Volume Right 0 43 0 cSH 871 1700 1490 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.05 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.9 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2019 Full Build Out PM 5: Access Road & Heavy Veh Access 02/03/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 0 0 45 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 45 0 0 45 0 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 49 0 0 49 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 24 24 49 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 24 24 49 tC, single (s) 7.4 7.1 5.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.4 4.1 3.0 p0 queue free % 94 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 790 846 1140 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 49 49 0 Volume Left 49 0 0 Volume Right 0 49 0 cSH 790 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.03 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.6 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2019 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out AM 1: Simplot Rd & PTH 1 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 635 87 156 818 2 45 0 97 5 0 2 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 635 87 156 818 2 45 0 97 5 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 690 95 170 889 2 49 0 105 5 0 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 891 785 1476 1921 345 1679 2014 444 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 690 690 1229 1229 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 786 1231 450 785 vCu, unblocked vol 891 785 1476 1921 345 1679 2014 444 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.6 5.6 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 79 79 100 84 96 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 744 817 229 176 645 136 154 564 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 230 460 95 170 444 444 2 154 7 Volume Left 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 49 5 Volume Right 0 0 95 0 0 0 2 105 2 cSH 744 1700 1700 817 1700 1700 1700 409 173 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.27 0.06 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.38 0.04 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 1.0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 26.7 Lane LOS B CD Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.7 19.0 26.7 Approach LOS CD Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out AM 2: Simplot Rd & Access 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 0 0 0 0 54 2 75 2 64 121 66 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 0 0 0 0 54 2 75 2 64 121 66 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 0 0 0 0 59 2 82 2 70 132 72 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 454 396 168 395 431 83 204 84 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 454 396 168 395 431 83 204 84 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 100 100 94 100 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 464 512 871 541 489 971 1356 1500 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 7 0 59 86 274 Volume Left 7 0 0 2 70 Volume Right 0 0 59 2 72 cSH 464 1700 971 1356 1500 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.2 Control Delay (s) 12.9 0.0 8.9 0.2 2.2 Lane LOS BAAAA Approach Delay (s) 12.9 8.9 0.2 2.2 Approach LOS BA Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out AM 3: Simplot Rd & Road 65N 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 105 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 105 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 114 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 299 228 0 228 228 0 0 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 299 228 0 228 228 0 0 0 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 93 100 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 574 621 1079 684 621 1079 1610 1610 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 71 0 114 Volume Left 0 0 0 114 Volume Right 0 71 0 0 cSH 1700 1079 1700 1610 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.8 Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.6 0.0 7.4 Lane LOS AA A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 8.6 0.0 7.4 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 7.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out AM 4: Access Road & Light Veh Access 02/03/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 0 45 60 0 45 Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 0 45 60 0 45 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 0 49 65 0 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 130 82 114 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 130 82 114 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 859 973 1463 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 114 49 Volume Left 22 0 0 Volume Right 0 65 0 cSH 859 1700 1463 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.07 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.6 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out AM 5: Access Road & Heavy Veh Access 02/03/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 0 0 45 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 45 0 0 45 0 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 49 0 0 49 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 24 24 49 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 24 24 49 tC, single (s) 7.4 7.2 5.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.4 4.2 3.0 p0 queue free % 94 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 790 828 1140 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 49 49 0 Volume Left 49 0 0 Volume Right 0 49 0 cSH 790 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.03 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.6 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out AM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out PM 1: Simplot Rd & PTH 1 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 616 73 57 590 3 54 0 64 0 0 2 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 616 73 57 590 3 54 0 64 0 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 670 79 62 641 3 59 0 70 0 0 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 644 749 1116 1438 335 1170 1514 320 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 670 670 765 765 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 446 768 405 749 vCu, unblocked vol 644 749 1116 1438 335 1170 1514 320 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.6 5.6 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 93 83 100 89 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 923 843 341 303 655 290 276 678 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 223 447 79 62 320 320 3 129 2 Volume Left 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 59 0 Volume Right 0 0 79 0 0 0 3 70 2 cSH 923 1700 1700 843 1700 1700 1700 461 678 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.26 0.05 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.28 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 10.3 Lane LOS A CB Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 15.8 10.3 Approach LOS CB Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out PM 2: Simplot Rd & Access 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 105 2 32 85 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 105 2 32 85 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 114 2 35 92 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 341 278 92 277 277 115 92 116 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 341 278 92 277 277 115 92 116 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 93 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 557 612 960 659 612 932 1490 1460 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 0 64 116 127 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 35 Volume Right 0 0 64 2 0 cSH 1700 1700 932 1490 1460 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 2.2 Lane LOS AAA A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 9.1 0.0 2.2 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out PM 3: Simplot Rd & Road 65N 02/03/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 85 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 85 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 92 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 298 184 0 184 184 0 0 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 298 184 0 184 184 0 0 0 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 89 100 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 556 666 1079 739 666 1079 1610 1610 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 0 114 0 92 Volume Left 0 0 0 92 Volume Right 0 114 0 0 cSH 1700 1079 1700 1610 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.7 0.0 7.4 Lane LOS AA A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 8.7 0.0 7.4 Approach LOS AA Intersection Summary Average Delay 8.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out PM 4: Access Road & Light Veh Access 02/03/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 0 45 40 0 45 Future Volume (Veh/h) 60 0 45 40 0 45 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 65 0 49 43 0 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 120 70 92 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 120 70 92 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 871 987 1490 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 65 92 49 Volume Left 65 0 0 Volume Right 0 43 0 cSH 871 1700 1490 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.05 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.9 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2029 Full Build Out PM 5: Access Road & Heavy Veh Access 02/03/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 0 0 45 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 45 0 0 45 0 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 49 0 0 49 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 24 24 49 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 24 24 49 tC, single (s) 7.4 7.2 5.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.4 4.2 3.1 p0 queue free % 94 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 790 828 1106 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 49 49 0 Volume Left 49 0 0 Volume Right 0 49 0 cSH 790 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.03 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.6 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.9 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

2029 Full Build Out PM Synchro 9 Report J Demong Page 5

Appendix F3

Manitoba Infrastructure Standards

RPT-Appendix F-20170315-TIS Final-P.Docx

Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS DIVISION

General Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies

April 2010

Prepared by: Highway Planning and Design Branch

General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OUTLINE 2

3. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OUTLINE DESCRIPTION 3

4. REFERENCE MATERIAL 9

General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

1. INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is to:

a) Determine what the impacts will be from a proposed development or redevelopment upon the adjacent highway network; and b) Determine what measures may be required to mitigate adverse impacts and allow the highway network to provide a satisfactory level of service.

The TIS shall be prepared under the supervision of a qualified and experienced transportation engineer, licensed in the Province of Manitoba.

Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT) may require a TIS for any development or redevelopment that may generate significant traffic and requires direct access to a Provincial highway or lies within the highway control area. The proponent / developer or their Engineering Service Provider (ESP) is encouraged to contact MIT as early as possible in the development of their TIS to confirm project-specific requirements.

MIT has prepared this document to: a) Provide guidance to the proponent / developer and their ESP in the preparation of the TIS; and b) Identify requirements to meet MIT review objectives.

The scope of each development and each redevelopment is unique and the proponent / developer or their ESP should contact MIT to determine the number of copies required for submission and to ascertain if any special circumstances should be taken into consideration. The TIS does not replace the requirement for a permit from Highway Traffic Board or MIT for access or construction within the controlled area.

Page 1 General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

2. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OUTLINE

A qualified Engineering Service Provider (ESP) with experience in traffic / transportation engineering shall undertake a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to analyze the impact of the proposed development or redevelopment on existing and future traffic operations and to develop functional designs for any recommended on-site and highway upgrading. The TIS shall include the following:

I. Study Purpose and Objectives

II. Description of the Proposed Development

1. Land Use 2. Location 3. Site Plan 4. Adjacent Sites / Highway Conditions 5. Phasing and/or Timing of Development or Redevelopment

III. Traffic Volumes

1. Existing Traffic Volumes 2. Traffic Growth Rate(s) 3. Site Generated Traffic 4. Total Future Traffic (and anticipated time expectations) 5. Trip Distribution

IV. Traffic Analysis

1. Site Access 2. Intersection Capacity and Level of Service 3. Traffic Safety 4. Site Circulation and On-Site Queuing Requirements 5. Pedestrian and Other Road User Requirements

V. Improvement Analysis

1. Intersection Treatment Warrant Analysis 2. Functional/Conceptual Design of a) Proposed Intersection Improvements and On-Highway Revisions; and b) Pedestrian and Other Road User Facilities and Related Improvements 3. Preliminary Cost Estimates

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 2 General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

3. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OUTLINE DESCRIPTION

The Highway Planning and Design Branch has primary responsibility for coordinating all TIS reviews for MIT.

The following expanded Guidelines identify key components that the Highway Planning and Design Branch, Traffic Engineering Branch, Regional Operations’ offices, and other appropriate Branches of MIT consider when reviewing any TIS. MIT believes that by providing transparency into its review requirements, the review and approval process can become more efficient and ultimately save the Province and private enterprise both time and money.

I. Study Purpose and Objectives

Identify study purpose and objectives.

II. Description of the Proposed Development or Redevelopment

1. Land Use

Identify existing and proposed land use(s), including: o Any impacts upon highway right-of-way or other provincially- managed properties, and o Identification of other landowners adjacent to the proposed development or redevelopment

2. Location

Identify project location by including a location map (overall context in regional perspective) and project-specific map (local context).

3. Site Plan

The site plan should include site boundaries, orientation, adjacent roadways, and all existing and proposed access points to the site, as well as any proposed internal roadway networks (if applicable) and both existing and proposed pedestrian/cyclist facilities (if applicable). The site plan and any accompanying plans/drawings must include a north arrow and a proper identification of all highway routes being impacted.

4. Adjacent Sites and Highway Conditions

Identify the location of access driveways, utilities, significant topographical / physical features, distances to major and minor intersections, etc.

5. Phasing and/or Timing of Development

Identify the time horizon for percent complete and supporting rationale.

Page 3 General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

III. Traffic Volumes

1. Existing Traffic Volumes

Existing traffic volumes along all adjacent roadways and accesses that could provide useful information in the review of the proposed access shall be provided.

Traffic volumes on the Provincial highway network may be obtained from the University of Manitoba Transport Information Group (UMTIG)1 which maintains the Manitoba Highway Traffic Information System (MHTIS).

To supplement this data, the ESP may need to conduct traffic counts in order to prepare the TIS. In such cases, traffic counts must be conducted during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, at a minimum.

Existing traffic volumes are to be presented in the report as an actual representation of the data collected (they should not be rounded). Both total daily (AADT) and peak hourly volumes must be presented.

For analysis purposes related to intersection treatment warrants, passenger car equivalent volumes will be required. The methodology used to determine these volumes, including the conversion factor, and the volumes themselves should be presented in the report text.

All existing traffic data should be included in an appendix or an accompanying CD.

2. Traffic Growth Rate(s)

Annual traffic growth rates along adjacent roadways should be calculated from historical traffic data obtained from UMTIG. When necessary, sound engineering judgment should be exercised to discount or eliminate any data which appears to vary substantially from a straight-line projection.

In the absence of historical traffic data, annual traffic growth rates from other highways in the immediate area can be used to support the growth rate used in the TIS.

In either situation, the report should identify the methodology used and provide supporting information in an appendix.

Page 4 General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

3. Site Generated Traffic

The methodology used to determine site generated traffic should be explained including land use assumptions and vehicle make-up assumptions. As well, all information used to determine the total daily traffic and peak hourly traffic generated by the proposed development should be presented in the report text or in an appendix. This includes all applicable references and data obtained from trip generation manuals such as ITE Trip Generation 2.

As with existing traffic volumes, all site generated traffic volumes should be converted to passenger car equivalent volumes and the methodology used to convert these, as well as any assumptions made, should be stated in the report text.

4. Total Future Traffic

Using a 10-year design horizon, future traffic volumes along all applicable roadways should be presented in the report text both for actual traffic volumes and for passenger car equivalent volumes. The design horizon should commence in the year at which full build-out is anticipated (i.e. if full build-out is anticipated in 2020 and a 10-year design horizon is being used, then traffic volumes should be projected to 2030).

For analysis purposes, both total daily and peak hourly volumes will be necessary and both should be presented in the report (or appendix as appropriate).

5. Trip Distribution

The assumptions used to distribute site generated traffic on the highway network should be stated to support the splits used. To support the findings based on these distributions, a sensitivity analysis comparing other potential distributions (including pass-by traffic) should be considered.

IV. Traffic Analysis

1. Site Access

The proposed highway access should be clearly defined in text and/or graphic form.

Page 5 General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

2. Intersection Capacity and Level of Service

The TIS should clearly identify the impacts site generated traffic and pass- by traffic will have on the adjacent highway and intersections. For computer based analysis, Synchro should be used.

At a minimum, this analysis should be carried out for:

i. Existing Conditions (i.e. current year background traffic) ii. Existing Conditions plus Full Build-Out Site Generated Traffic (i.e. full build-out year background traffic with site generated traffic included) iii. Future Conditions (10-year design horizon).

By analyzing these three conditions, the TIS will be able to compare the impacts of site generated traffic on the highway network versus growth in existing traffic on the highway network.

The analysis should include identification of the total intersection performance as well as identification of the critical movements and any possible negative side-affects that may result (i.e. excessive queuing). Supporting information including Synchro output sheets should be included in an appendix or an accompanying CD.

The TIS should also include a traffic signal warrant analysis to determine if traffic signals are or will be warranted at the proposed access or adjacent highway intersections. The traffic signal analysis should be carried out in accordance with the Canadian Traffic Signal Warrant Matrix Procedure as outlined in the Transportation Association of Canada’s Traffic Signal Warrant Handbook (March 2007)3. MIT warrant levels differ from those presented by TAC. The actual warrant levels shall be as defined in MIT Traffic Engineering Policy 400-A-24. Supporting information including the resulting matrix output sheet(s) should be included in an appendix.

3. Traffic Safety

The TIS may include a collision analysis to determine if there are any areas of concern within the immediate area of the proposed access and to be able to support the position that the proposed access will not cause an existing area of concern to deteriorate further.

If areas of concern are identified, the TIS should identify their location, discuss any impacts the proposed access (or the overall development or redevelopment) would have, and present possible mitigation measures if appropriate.

Page 6 General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

The results of the analysis should be presented in the report text and any supporting information should be included in an appendix.

A separate analysis and write-up should also be provided discussing pedestrian and cyclist issues related to the development or redevelopment (relative to highway operations), including recommended mitigation measures as may be appropriate/required.

4. Site Circulation and On-Site Queuing Requirements

In situations where the proposed access point will function as a driveway to a single-use parcel (such as a travel plaza), the TIS should clearly show the site has been adequately designed to handle all turning movements and that no queuing or reversing movements will occur on the adjacent highway. Although AutoTURN is most often used for this analysis, any industry-accepted method is sufficient.

V. Improvement Analysis

1. Intersection Treatment Warrant Analysis

Developments on Rural Two-Lane Highways

The full complement of intersection treatments that MIT considers for rural two-lane highways should be considered. This analysis should be carried out in accordance with MIT’s Warrants and Standards for Intersection Treatments of Rural Two-Lane Highways, Design Guide, Second Edition, May 20015. This guide is intended for isolated intersections on high speed rural highways and may not be applicable in urban or suburban situations.

Deviations from this Design Guide will be considered on a case-by-case basis when supported by sound engineering judgment and in cases with unusual circumstances.

Developments on Multi-Lane Highways and in Urban Settings

This analysis should be carried out in accordance with Transportation 6 Association of Canada’s Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads and supporting engineering standards and guidelines.

All analyses used to support the intersection treatment warrant analysis should be included in an appendix, including calculations, figures and graphs.

Page 7 General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

2. Functional/Conceptual Design of Proposed Intersection Improvements and On-Highway Revisions

A figure(s) should be provided to identify all on-highway improvements upstream and downstream of the proposed access (or overall development or redevelopment). This figure could include potential improvements based on the collision analysis, recommended access closures, and other network improvements.

Functional drawings should include basic dimensioning for existing and proposed lanes, tapers, radii, existing and future right-of-way widths, and approximate distances to important features such as drains, bridges, driveways, utilities, railway crossings, etc. All drawings should clearly identify what is to be constructed (and when) including all design-related information. Drawings should not simply recreate the intersection treatments presented in the Design Guide, but rather illustrate how they would actually tie-in to the proposed development.

3. Preliminary Cost Estimates

The TIS shall include a preliminary cost estimate for the proposed functional design, and also include an appropriate staging plan (complete with projected timing for each stage).

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

The report shall present all conclusions reached as a result of the analyses carried out including traffic analysis, collision analysis, traffic signal warrant analysis, and intersection treatment warrant analysis.

The report shall summarize all recommendations including any construction that is recommended along the highway network and the year in which it is anticipated.

The report shall identify that, in most cases, the full cost to construct the recommended improvement will be borne by the party proposing the development / redevelopment.

Page 8 General Guidelines for the Preparation of Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Traffic Impact Studies April 2010

4. REFERENCE MATERIAL

The following reference material is cited above. Additional material may be required and in all instances the ESP is encouraged to use the most current standards and guidance available.

1University of Manitoba Transport Information Group. http://umtig.mgmt.umanitoba.ca/

2Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C.

3Traffic Signal Warrant Handbook, March 2007, Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

4Traffic Engineering Policy No. 400-A-2, January 15, 1998, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, Traffic Engineering, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

5Warrants and Standards for Intersection Treatments of Rural Two-Lane Highways, Second Edition, May 2001, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (formerly Manitoba Transportation and Government Services), Winnipeg, Manitoba.

6Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, 1999 Edition (Updated December 2007), Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Page 9

About AECOM AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is built to deliver a better world. We design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments, businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries. As a fully integrated firm, we connect knowledge and experience across our global network of experts to help clients solve their most complex challenges. From high-performance buildings and infrastructure, to resilient communities and environments, to stable and secure nations, our work is transformative, differentiated and vital. A Fortune 500 firm, AECOM companies had revenue of approximately US$19 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2015. See how we deliver what others can only imagine at aecom.com and @AECOM.

Contact James McCutchon Manager, Transportation, Roads T +204-928-8429 E [email protected]

aecom.com

Appendix G

Open House Letters

AECOM Canada Ltd. 99 Commerce Drive Winnipeg MB R3P 0Y7 Canada

T: 204.477.5381 F: 204.284.2040 aecom.com

Date January 24, 2017

Dear Stakeholder,

On behalf of Roquette, AECOM would like to invite you to attend the upcoming Open House being held for the Portage Pea Project.

The Portage Pea Project involves constructing a pea processing facility in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park. The proposed facility would use yellow peas and separate them into protein, starch and fiber to meet customer demands in food, nutrition and health markets.

The facility is a Class 1 Development under The Environment Act (Manitoba), and will require an Environmental License from the Department of Sustainable Development. AECOM is working on the environmental assessment that is required to apply for this license. In conjunction with environmental assessment activities, Roquette is meeting with stakeholders and interested parties to share project information, collect feedback, and address any concerns about the project.

As part of the stakeholder engagement activities, we will be hosting a Community Open House. Project representatives from Roquette and AECOM will be available at the Open House to discuss the Project with you and collect any feedback you may have. The Open House is drop-in format and the details are as follows:

Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Location: PCU Centre, 245 Royal Road S, Portage la Prairie, MB

Time: 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

We will be sharing some of our food samples for attendees to enjoy. You will note an advertisement for this event in the January 26th, 2017 edition of the Thursday Herald Leader as well.

If you are unable to attend the Open House but would like to meet with us, please feel free to contact Somia Sadiq at [email protected] or (204) 899-5767, and we would be happy to arrange for a time to meet with you in the near future.

We look forward to discussing the Project with you.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by:

Somia Sadiq, BEnv.Sc., EP, MCIP RPP AECOM Canada Ltd. E: [email protected]

aecom.com

1/1 Dakota Tipi First Nation January 23rd 2017 2020 Dakota Dr. RM of Portage la Prairie R1N 3X6

Dear Chief Kevin Pashe,

We would like to introduce ourselves. Roquette Group is a family-owned company serving customers globally. The Group is a leader in specialty food ingredients and pharmaceutical excipients. The products and solutions developed by the group deliver proven technological, nutritional and health benefits tailored to the pharma, nutrition, food and health markets.

We would like to discuss the Portage Pea Project with you. The Portage Pea Project will involve construction of a pea processing facility in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park, in the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie. The proposed facility would use yellow peas and separate them into protein, starch and fiber to meet customer demands in food, nutrition and health markets.

We would appreciate an opportunity to visit you to introduce ourselves and get to know your community better. We would appreciate a chance to visit your community on January 31, 2017 at 2:00 PM. If this date and time are not suitable to you, we would be happy to meet you at another time that is feasible for you. We have hired AECOM Canada Ltd., to assist us with planning meetings. Please contact Somia Sadiq at [email protected] or 204-899-5767 to confirm if this works for you.

In addition to the visit, we also wish to extend you an invitation to a community open house that we will be hosting on February 1st, 2017. Project representatives will be available at the Open House to discuss the Project and collect feedback from attendees. The Open House is drop-in format and the details are as follows:

Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Location: PCU Centre, 245 Royal Road S, Portage la Prairie, MB

Time: 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

We will be sharing some of our food samples for attendees to enjoy. You will note an advertisement for this event in the January 26th, 2017 edition of the Thursday Herald Leader as well. We hope you are able to attend the open house.

We look forward to working with you.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by:

Martin Fregeau Global Project Leader, PNP Business Line Roquette Frères S.A.

ROQUETTE FRERES, 1, RUE DE LA HAUTE LOGE, 62136 LESTREM FRANCE, TEL. 03.21.63.36.00 SOCIETE ANONYME AU CAPITAL DE 8.812.908 EUROS RCS ARRAS 357 200 054 TVA FR 46357200054 WWW.ROQUETTE.COM Long Plain First Nation January 23rd 2017 PO Box 430 RM of Portage la Prairie R1N 3X6

Dear Chief Dennis Meeches,

We would like to introduce ourselves. Roquette Group is a family-owned company serving customers globally. The Group is a leader in specialty food ingredients and pharmaceutical excipients. The products and solutions developed by the group deliver proven technological, nutritional and health benefits tailored to the pharma, nutrition, food and health markets.

We would like to discuss the Portage Pea Project with you. The Portage Pea Project will involve construction of a pea processing facility in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park, in the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie. The proposed facility would use yellow peas and separate them into protein, starch and fiber to meet customer demands in food, nutrition and health markets.

We would appreciate an opportunity to visit you to introduce ourselves and get to know your community better. We would appreciate a chance to visit your community on February 1st, 2017 at 10:00 AM. If this date and time are not suitable to you, we would be happy to meet you at another time that is feasible for you. We have hired AECOM Canada Ltd., to assist us with planning meetings. Please contact Somia Sadiq at [email protected] or 204-899-5767 to confirm if this works for you.

In addition to the visit, we also wish to extend you an invitation to a community open house that we will be hosting on February 1st, 2017. Project representatives will be available at the Open House to discuss the Project and collect feedback from attendees. The Open House is drop-in format and the details are as follows:

Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Location: PCU Centre, 245 Royal Road S, Portage la Prairie, MB

Time: 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

We will be sharing some of our food samples for attendees to enjoy. You will note an advertisement for this event in the January 26th, 2017 edition of the Thursday Herald Leader as well. We hope you are able to attend the open house.

We look forward to working with you.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by: Martin Fregeau Global Project Leader, PNP Business Line Roquette Frères

ROQUETTE FRERES, 1, RUE DE LA HAUTE LOGE, 62136 LESTREM FRANCE, TEL. 03.21.63.36.00 SOCIETE ANONYME AU CAPITAL DE 8.812.908 EUROS RCS ARRAS 357 200 054 TVA FR 46357200054 WWW.ROQUETTE.COM

Appendix H

Open House Story Boards and Fact Sheets

Improving well-being by offering the best of nature

To be the natural source of innovative plant-based ingredients and formulations for highly demanding industries

www.roquette.com ABOUT ROQUETTE QUALITYY PHARMAMA SUSTAINABILITYSUSTAINABILLITYLIDEDICATION A Family-owned Innovators in plant-basedEXPERIENCEEXPERI company with an international ingredients from , wheat, dimension A world leader potatoes and peas We serve customers in the starch globally in Pharma, NOVATION manufacturing industry Nutrition, Food and with over 80 years of FAMMILYotherLY IndustriesYINDUSTRNUTRITIONNU experience NATURALFOODFOODDLEADERSHIP

www.roquette.com HISTORY OF ROQUETTE

Founded by Dominique Owned by over 200 & Germain Roquette family shareholders

1933 1982 2001 2012 Today

Development Development in Development in Development in Development in in Europe North America Asia India Canada

1933 1946 1986 2005 Today

1st 1st 1st wheat 1st pea 20 production sites starch plant plant starch plant processing site worldwide

www.roquette.com GLOBAL PRESENCE A commercial network in more than 100 countries

€3.3b Turnover

8,000 Employees

20 Industrial Sites

8.4Mt Plant-based raw materials

www.roquette.com INDUSTRIAL KNOW-HOW Best in Class Optimized Process, Manufacturing Capabilities Improved Quality, Lower Energy Use High quality Safety is our investments priority guaranteeing long-term performance World food and pharma Best-in-class standards industrial maintenance guaranteeing long- term performance

In Vecquemont (Potato Plant, France), optimizing the filtration and drying process: • Boosted the production rate by more than 10% • Improved the microbiological quality of the starch Dedicated people Industrial assets • Reduced the energy use by 5% with extensive in- at the right scale house experience to benefit from the High level of best technologies A strong expertise automation

www.roquette.com SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Innovating • Understand customers’ needs and anticipate consumers’ expectations • Continue to expand our track record of sustainable development as inspired by customers’ expectations • Strengthen sustainability in our innovation processes Sourcing • Source sustainably • Continuously improve our raw material quality • Strengthen relationship with our raw materials suppliers Acting •Put health, safety and well-being at the heart of our concerns •Empower employees • Build on our diversity • Collaborate with local communities as we develop our activities Biorefining • Optimize our energy consumption • Preserve water • Further reduce other environmental impacts

www.roquette.com OUR SOLUTIONS In Nutrition and Food Markets We bring high-quality ingredients to Food and Nutrition markets. Our range of plant-based solutions enable consumers to make food choices they can feel good about, and better fit a healthy lifestyle.

Pleasant texture Creamy Less texture more fibre Dairy-Free 3 times less fat

High in plant-based Vegetarian protein Taste & Appetising creaminess glossiness

Shininess Sugar free

Outstanding Prolonged texture crunchiness

www.roquette.com OUR SOLUTIONS In Pharma Markets Ensuring patient safety with high-quality and stable ingredients is our priority. Roquette is a long-established global provider of plant-based excipients and active ingredients for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dialysis & Injectables Solutions

Oral Dosage Biopharmaceuticals, Vaccines, Liquid or Solid Solutions & Therapeutics Solutions

www.roquette.com YELLOW PEA IS GREEN

• Pea plants fix nitrogen and improve soil fertility and crop yield. • Growing peas in between wheat crops reduces: - Energy use by 11% - Greenhouse gas emissions by 14%

www.roquette.com PEA PROTEIN SOLUTIONS NUTRALYS® Pea protein: Delicious High-protein A Consumer-friendly source of protein high-protein dough bar Trustworthy and Sustainable pancake14g protein mix 32% protein • GMO Free, Gluten Free, Halal, Kosher, not a major allergen • Clean and natural water-based process EASY TO PREPARE! TASTY OPTIMUM AMINO • Organic compatible ACID SUPPLY • Small eco footprint HIGH IN PROTEIN MULTIPLE CONTRIBUTES TO SOURCES MUSCLE GROWTH 50:50 VEGETABLE/MILK & RECOVERY PROTEIN COMBINATION Nutrition OF PROTEIN • Low in fat, no cholesterol • High digestibility • High in important amino acids • Offer diversified and complementary protein source

FEEL FULL FOR LONGER A Taste for Health & Pleasure! MUSCLE MASS MAINTENANCE -LJWÐDMPÐPCDCPCLAC Ð?ÐPC?JÐNPMBSARÐAMSJBÐ@CÐQCCLÐBG˾CPCLR • Improved taste -LJWÐDMPÐPCDCPCLAC Ð?ÐPC?JÐNPMBSARÐAMSJBÐ@CÐQCCLÐBG˾CPCLR • Texture: Great functional properties • Health benefits • Adapted to Vegetarian, Vegan, Flexitarian diets

BAKINGB SAVOURY DAIRY BEVERAGE CONFECTIONERY SPECIALIZED PET FOOD FEED SPECIALTY SSOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS NUTRITION SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS

www.roquette.com THE PORTAGE PEA PROJECT

The proposed plant will use yellow peas and separate them into protein, starch and fibers to meet customer demands in Food, Nutrition and Health markets.

www.roquette.com PROPOSED LOCATION N 240

Thompson City of Portage la Prairie Trans Canada HWY

Crescent Lake

Portage la Prairie Winnipeg Brandon Portage Diversion 240 P-L-P Bypass

LEGEND Road 41W Project Project Site

Roads Assiniboine River Provincial Highways 240 331 Provincial Roads Local Roads

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

www.roquette.com PROPOSED SITE PLAN N

Utilities Area

Truck Parking Parking

Production Area Administrative Area

Utilities

Road 41W Area Production Area

Green Space

Site Boundary Utilities Area

www.roquette.com PROPOSED SITE PLAN

Production Area

S

E W Utilities Area N Raw Material Reception

Logistics Area

Main Entrance and Parking

www.roquette.com ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Pea Processing Facility is a Class 1 Development* under The Environment Act (Manitoba), and will require an Environmental license from the Department of Sustainable Development. In order to apply for this license, we will undertake an environmental assessment, which involves:

Determining the Characterizing the potential effects of 1 project site and area. 4 the project. Identifying Identifying mitigation 2 environmental 5 measures to manage components. effects. Designing monitoring 3 Describing the project. 6 and follow-up programs.

*Categorized per the Classes of Development Regulation (164/88) as “food processing plant” - a plant where agricultural products are processed into food.

www.roquette.com ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

In order to understand the potential impact of the project on the environment, we are taking into account the following components:

1 Air Quality 7 Groundwater 13 Heritage Resources

2 Noise 8 Surface Water 14 Land Use

3 Traffic 9 Aquatic Habitat 15 Municipal Services

4 Topography 10 Fauna 16 Local Communities

5 Geology 11 Flora 17 Protected Areas

6 Soil 12 Protected Species 18 Transportation

www.roquette.com PEA PROCESSING

Broken Peas Hulls Ground Peas Clean & Sort Pellets

Remaining Peas

Filter & Separate

Starch Slurry Fiber Slurry

Refi ne & Dry Separate Concentrate

Non-soluble Soluble Protein Protein Fiber Paste Powdered Starch Grind & Dry Mixer

Powdered Protein Dryer

Pea Feed

www.roquette.com PROJECT TIMELINE

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Activity Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Location Evaluation

Engineering Studies

Permitting

Land Preparation

Engineering Procurement Construction Construction Start Up

Production Plant Start Up

www.roquette.com The Portage Pea Project

Roquette is planning to construct a Pea Processing Facility which will be located just outside the City of Portage la Prairie, in the Poplar Bluff Industrial Park.

Pea Processing

The proposed facility will use yellow peas and separate them into protein, starch and fibers to meet customer demands in Food, Nutrition, and Health markets.

Broken Peas Hulls Ground Peas Clean & Sort Pellets

Remaining Peas

Filter & Separate

Starch Slurry Fiber Slurry

Refi ne & Dry Separate Concentrate

Non-soluble Soluble Protein Protein Fiber Paste Powdered Starch Grind & Dry Mixer

Powdered Protein Dryer

Pea Feed

www.roquette.com

A global leader in natural- based ingredients

A family-owned Group serving customers globally, Roquette is a leader in specialty food ingredients and pharmaceutical excipients.

The products and solutions developed by the Group deliver proven technological, nutritional and health benefits precisely tailored to the pharma, nutrition, food and selected industry markets. Roquette’s offer is produced from plant-based raw materials such as corn, wheat, potatoes and peas.

Since its foundation over 80 years ago, the Group’s growth has been based on innovation, a passion for the job and a commitment to achieve.

€3.3bn 8,000 20 8.4Mt TURNOVER EMPLOYEES INDUSTRIAL SITES PLANT-BASED RAW MATERIALS Key markets

Food & Animal Nutrition Nutrition

Pharma Industries

Senior leadership Vision

Edouard Roquette Chairman of the Board Improving well-being . Graduated from the SKEMA Business by offering the best of nature School (France) . Joined the family business in 1994 . Director of the Board since 2008 and Chairman of the Board of Directors since Ambition July 2012 Roquette aims to be the natural source Jean-Marc Gilson of innovative plant-based ingredients CEO and formulations for highly . Degree in Chemical Engineering, University demanding industries of Liège (Belgium) and Executive MBA, IMD, Lausanne (Switzerland) . Appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Roquette Group in September 2014, after a long international career in different companies in Europe, Asia and America A global presence

A commercial network in more than decades of international development 100 countries 8 Creation of Roquette Frères st Development 1933 1 potato in Europe starch plant 1st corn 1946 starch plant Development in North America 1982 1st wheat 1986 starch plant Development in Asia 2001 1st pea 2005 processing site Development 2012 in India Today 20 best-in-class manufacturing sites A strong innovation capacity

Roquette has adopted an approach of permanent innovation to create new products and solutions that are ever more adapted to the needs of consumers.

300+ 40/year 10% Research Patents of revenues in industrial workforce capital and R&D*

Some examples * 10 year average

Plant-based protein for Sugar alternatives and Nutritional and functional Orodispersible pharma healthier food sugar-free products solutions for pet food tablets formulation

A leading sustainable development approach

Roquette’s actions rely on 4 commitments

www.roquette.com 2017

Appendix I

Open House Ads, Feedback Forms, & Media Summary Table

Comment Sheet

Portage Pea Project Open House

Thank you for joining Roquette today to discuss our proposed plans to build a pea processing facility west of Portage la Prairie. Reflecting on what you’ve learned about our project at this open house, please complete this comment sheet. We greatly appreciate your input and participation.

1. Where do you live?

□ The City of Portage la Prairie □ The RM of Portage la Prairie

□ City of Winnipeg □ Other:______2. How did you hear about this project? □ The Portage la Prairie Herald □ Advertising at Stride Place (formerly Leader the PCU Centre) □ The Winnipeg Free Press □ A televised announcement □ Word of mouth □ Other:______

3. What best describes your interest in this project? Please choose the most relevant option:

□ Local Resident □ Local Farmer

□ Local Business Owner □ General Interest

□ Other:______

4. Please rate the quality of the information provided:

a) Roquette’s history, company mission, and product solutions:

□ Very poor □ Poor □ Satisfactory □ Good □ Very Good

b) The purpose of the proposed facility:

□ Very poor □ Poor □ Satisfactory □ Good □ Very Good

c) The environmental studies being conducted on the site in preparation for construction:

□ Very poor □ Poor □ Satisfactory □ Good □ Very Good 5. Do you have any concerns about the project? Please check all that apply:

□ Air Quality □ Soil □ Flora

□ Noise □ Groundwater □ Land Use

□ Traffic □ Surface Water □ Municipal Services

□ Topography □ Aquatic Habitat □ Local Communities

□ Geology □ Fauna □ Protected Areas

□ Other: ______

6. Please provide any additional comments or feedback:

______

7. If you noted any concerns or project interests in this comment sheet and would like to be updated about the project, please leave your contact information below.

Name: ______

Phone Number: ______

Email: ______

Mailing Address:

______Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Portage Pea Project - Summary of Media Coverage

Date Source Title Reference

Unknown Food Business Roquette to build largest http://www.foodbusinessafrica.com/index.p Africa pea protein facility to meet hp/advertise/124-news-by- rising demand category/business-investments/6326- roquette-to-build-largest-pea-protein- facility-to-meet-rising-demand-3

Unknown MyInforms.com Premier finds good fortune http://myinforms.com/en-ca/a/45761527- with portage pea plant premier-finds-good-fortune-with-portage- pea-plant/

Unknown Winnipeg Free Premier finds good fortune http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/pre Press with Portage pea plant mier-finds-good-fortune-with-portage-pea- plant-411126435.html/

Unknown Food processing Roquette Pea Protein http://www.foodprocessing- technology Manufacturing Plant, technology.com/projects/roquette-pea- Portage la Prairie, protein-manufacturing-plant-portage-la- Manitoba, Canada prairie-manitoba/

Unknown B&L Roquette to build largest http://www.blmedien.de/moproweb/IDM/Ne MedienGesellsc pea protein processing ws/Roquette-to-build-largest-pea-protein- processing-facility-to-date-for-Food- haft facility to date for Food, Nutrition-and-Health-markets-- Nutrition and Health 343267817.html/ markets

Unknown MyInforms.com New pea processing plant http://myinforms.com/en-ca/a/45759661- near portage la Prairie to new-pea-processing-plant-near-portage-la- prairie-to-create-150-jobs/ create 150 jobs

January 18, 730 CKDM New $400 Million Pea https://730ckdm.com/index.php/news/item/ 2017 Processing Plant To Be 14333-new-400-million-pea-processing- Built In Portage la Prairie plant-to-be-built-in-portage-la-prairie

January 18, Channel News Reuters - France’s http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/hea 2017 Asia Roquette bets on pea lth/france-s-roquette-bets-on-pea-protein- protein with Canadian with-canadian-factory/3449090.html/ Factory

January 18, One News Page Reuters - France’s http://www.onenewspage.us/n/Health/75e2 2017 Roquette bets on pea 1h15k/France-Roquette-bets-on-pea- protein-with.htm/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, News Reality Reuters - France’s http://www.newsreality.com/post/frances- 2017 Roquette bets on pea roquette-bets-on-pea-protein-with- canadian-factory.html/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, News Reality - Reuters - France’s http://www.newsr.in/n/Sports/75e21h0xn/Fr 2017 India Roquette bets on pea ance-Roquette-bets-on-pea-protein- with.htm/ protein with Canadian

Page 1 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

Factory

January 18, Health Medicine Reuters - France’s http://healthmedicinet.com/i/frances- 2017 Network Roquette bets on pea roquette-bets-on-pea-protein-with- canadian-factory/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, Successful Reuters - France’s http://www.agriculture.com/markets/newswi 2017 Farming Roquette bets on pea re/frances-roquette-bets-on-pea-protein- with-canadian-factory/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, Netscape Reuters - France’s http://isp.netscape.com/news/odd/story/000 2017 Roquette bets on pea 2/20170118/KBN1522QV_2/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, WTVB Reuters - France’s http://wtvbam.com/news/articles/2017/jan/1 2017 Roquette bets on pea 8/frances-roquette-bets-on-pea-protein- with-canadian-factory/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, SRNNews.com Reuters - France’s http://www.srnnews.com/frances-roquette- 2017 Roquette bets on pea bets-on-pea-protein-with-canadian-factory/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, WIN 98.5 Reuters - France’s http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2017/ja 2017 Roquette bets on pea n/18/frances-roquette-bets-on-pea-protein- with-canadian-factory/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, KFGO Reuters - France’s http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2017/jan/18/fr 2017 Roquette bets on pea ances-roquette-bets-on-pea-protein-with- canadian-factory/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, WKZO Reuters - France’s http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2017/jan/18/fr 2017 Roquette bets on pea ances-roquette-bets-on-pea-protein-with- canadian-factory/ protein with Canadian Factory

January 18, AFP Roquette investit 300 http://www.boursorama.com/actualites/roqu 2017 millions d'euros dans un ette-investit-300-millions-d-euros-dans-un- site-de-production-de-proteines-de-pois-au- site de production de canada- protéines de pois au 09f67d52bd08a5d0a5dd3ae78a73cc66 Canada

January 18, La France Roquette investit 300 http://www.lafranceagricole.fr/actualites/prot 2017 Agricole millions d'euros dans un eines-de-pois-bientot-un-site-de- production-roquette-au-canada- site de production de 1,1,147270759.html/ protéines de pois au Canada

Page 2 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

January 18, The Globe and Roquette French food giant http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on- 2017 Mail to build Manitoba factory business/french-food-giant-to-build- manitoba-factory/article33656339/

January 18, CBC Manitoba World's biggest pea plant http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/p 2017 coming to Portage la ea-plant-manitoba-1.3941631/ Prairie

January 18, Canadian French firm plans $400M http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/ma 2017 Manufacturing pea processing plant in nufacturing/french-firm-plans-400m-pea- Manitoba processing-plant-manitoba-182172/

January 18, CBC News World's biggest pea http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/p 2017 processing plant coming to ea-plant-manitoba-1.3941631 Portage la Prairie

January 18, Yahoo News World's biggest pea https://ca.news.yahoo.com/worlds-biggest- 2017 processing plant coming to pea-plant-coming-213615920.html/ Portage la Prairie

January 18, ChrisD.ca New Pea Processing Plant http://www.chrisd.ca/2017/01/18/roquette- 2017 Near Portage la Prairie to pea-processing-plant-portage-la-prairie/ Create 150 Jobs

January 18, City of Portage Province announces http://www.city-plap.com/main/province- 2017 la Prairie historic investment in announces-historic-investment-in- Manitoba’s food manitobas-food-processing-sector/ processing sector

January 18, CTV News The Canadian Press - New http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/new-pea- 2017 pea-processing plant in the processing-plant-in-the-works-near- works near Portage la portage-la-prairie-1.3246932 Prairie

January 18, Ichainnel The Canadian Press - New http://ichainnel.com/en/news/936836_p87w 2017 pea-processing plant in the 35-french-firm-plans-400m-pea-processing- works near Portage la plant-in-manitoba/ Prairie http://ichainnel.com/en/news/937171_0wzv p9-french-firm-roquette-to-build-400m-pea- processing-plant-in-manitoba/

January 18, MetroNews The Canadian Press - New http://www.metronews.ca/news/winnipeg/20 2017 pea-processing plant in the 17/01/18/new-pea-processing-plant-in-the- works near Portage la works-near-portage-la-prairie-in- Prairie manitoba.html/

January 18, The Brandon The Canadian Press - New http://www.brandonsun.com/agriculture/bre 2017 Sun pea-processing plant in the aking-news/new-pea-processing-plant-in- works near Portage la the-works-near-portage-la-prairie-in- Prairie manitoba-411120885.html?thx=y/

January 18, Farms.com New pea-protein http://www.farms.com/ag-industry- processing facility coming news/new-pea-protein-processing-facility-

Page 3 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

2017 to Manitoba coming-to-manitoba-884.aspx

January 18, Farms.com Province Announces http://www.farms.com/news/province- 2017 Historic Investment In announces-historic-investment-in- manitoba-s-food-processing-sector- Manitoba's Food- 117940.aspx/ Processing Sector

January 18, CJOB Massive Pea Processing http://www.cjob.com/2017/01/18/massive- 2017 Plant to be Built in Portage pea-processing-plant-to-be-built-in-portage- la Prairie la-prairie/

January 18, CKLQ Province Invests in Pea http://www.cklq.com/index.php?id=62&tx_tt 2017 Processing Facility news%5Btt_news%5D=13608&cHash=1b5 16381dd6c4cd347ca7cc451e7d3f5/ January 18, CKDM New $400 Million Pea http://www.730ckdm.com/index.php/news/it 2017 Processing Plant To Be em/14333-new-400-million-pea-processing- Built In Portage la Prairie plant-to-be-built-in-portage-la-prairie/ January 18, Food Navigator- Roquette to open world’s http://www.foodnavigator- 2017 USA biggest pea protein plant in usa.com/Suppliers2/Roquette-to-open-US- Manitoba in 2019, says 300m-pea-protein-plant-in-Manitoba CEO: 'Demand absolutely outstrips supply’

January 18, PreparedFoods. Roquette to Build Pea http://www.preparedfoods.com/articles/119 2017 com Protein Processing Facility 296-roquette-to-build-pea-protein- processing-facility/

January 18, ICI Radio La plus grande usine de http://ici.radio- 2017 Canada transformation de pois au canada.ca/nouvelle/1011680/proteine-pois- roquette-usine-manitoba/ monde érigée au Manitoba

January 18, Real Agriculture French Company Roquette https://www.realagriculture.com/2017/01/fre 2017 to Build $400 Million Pea nch-company-roquette-building-400-million- Processing Plant in pea-processing-plant-in-manitoba/ Manitoba January 18, Pembina Valley $400-Million Pea https://www.pembinavalleyonline.com/local/ 2017 Online Processing Plant to Be 400-million-pea-processing-plant-to-be- Built in RM of Portage built-in-rm-of-portage

January 18, Portage Daily Pea protein processing http://www.portagedailygraphic.com/2017/0 2017 Graphic facility announced 1/18/pea-protein-processing-facility- announced

January 18, Portage Online Portage MLA Weighs In On https://www.portageonline.com/local/portag 2017 Plans For New Portage e-mla-weighs-in-on-plans-for-new-portage- Plant plant

January 18, Portage Online Long Search Leads https://www.portageonline.com/local/long- 2017 Roquette to Portage la search-leads-roquette-to-portage-la-prairie Prairie

January 18, Portage Online $400-Million Pea https://www.portageonline.com/local/pea- 2017 Processing Plant to Be plant-coming-to-rm-portage Built in RM of Portage

Page 4 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

January 18, Commodity C$400 Million Pea Processing Unknown 2017 News Service Plant To Be Built In Manitoba Canada

Unknown Portage Online Major Ag Announcement https://www.portageonline.com/local/major- For RM of Portage ag-announcement-set-to-begin/

January 18, Real Agriculture French Company Roquette https://www.realagriculture.com/2017/01/fre 2017 to Build $400 Million Pea nch-company-roquette-building-400-million- Processing Plant in pea-processing-plant-in-manitoba/ Manitoba

January 18, Reuter’s France's Roquette bets on http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france- 2017 pea protein with Canadian roquette-canada-idUSKBN1522QV factory

January 18, Steinbach $400 Million Pea https://steinbachonline.com/ag-news/400- 2017 Online Processing Plant To Be million-pea-processing-plant-to-be-built- Built Near Portage near-portage

January 18, Sygenta New Pea Processing Plant https://www.syngenta.ca/News/market- 2017 Announced for Manitoba news/new-pea-processing-plant- announced-for-manitoba

January 18, Top Crop New pea processing plant http://www.topcropmanager.com/news/new- 2017 Manager to be built near Portage la pea-processing-plant-to-be-built-near- Prairie, M.B. portage-la-prairie-mb-19877

January 18, Toronto Sun $400M plant to open in http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/18/400 2017 Portage la Prairie m-plant-to-open-in-portage-la-prairie

January 18, Winnipeg Free World's largest pea http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ne 2017 Press processing plant will create w-pea-plant-will-create-150-jobs-in-portage- 150 jobs in Portage la la-prairie-411103715.html Prairie

January 18, Winnipeg Metro The Canadian Press - New http://www.metronews.ca/news/winnipeg/20 2017 pea-processing plant in the 17/01/18/new-pea-processing-plant-in-the- works near Portage la works-near-portage-la-prairie-in- Prairie in Manitoba manitoba.html

January 18, Brandon Sun The Canadian Press - New http://www.brandonsun.com/agriculture/bre 2017 pea-processing plant in the aking-news/new-pea-processing-plant-in- works near Portage la the-works-near-portage-la-prairie-in- Prairie in Manitoba manitoba-411120885.html?thx=y/

January 18, Winnipeg Sun $400M plant to open in http://www.winnipegsun.com/2017/01/18/40 2017 Portage la Prairie 0m-plant-to-open-in-portage-la-prairie

January 19, Asia Pacific Roquette To Build US$302 http://www.apfoodonline.com/index.php/bnf/ 2017 Food Industry Million Pea Protein item/1305-roquette-to-build-us-302-million- Processing Facility pea-protein-processing-facility

Page 5 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

January 19, La Voix du Nord Roquette va construire au http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/105594/article/20 2017 Canada le plus grand site 17-01-19/roquette-va-construire-au- de production de protéine canada-le-plus-grand-site-de-production- de pois au monde de-proteine-de/

January 19, La Voix du Nord Notre futur est dans notre http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/105915/article/2 2017 assiette 017-01-19/

January 19, Les Echos Roquette investit http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie- 2017 massivement dans la services/conso- protéine végétale distribution/0211705195625-roquette- investit-massivement-dans-la-proteine- vegetale-2058399.php/ January 19, Les Marchés Roquette investit 400 M$ http://lesmarches.reussir.fr/749866-article/ 2017 canadiens dans la protéine de pois January 19, Baking Business Roquette to invest over http://www.bakingbusiness.com/articles/ne 2017 C$400 million in pea ws_home/Supplier_Innovations/2017/01/Ro protein plant in Canada quette_to_invest_over_C$400.aspx?ID=%7 B8E8243BD-1567-48D3-963E- FC00DC0427C9%7D&cck=1/ January 19, Canada Crop France’s Roquette bets on http://gr8whitenorth.com/cpc/4-frances- 2017 Protection pea protein with Manitoba roquette-bets-on-pea-protein-with- manitoba-factory-wp/

January 19, Winnipeg Sun Giving Peas A Chance; http://www.pressreader.com/canada/winnip 2017 $400M processing plant to eg-sun/20170119/281522225791934/ open near Portage la Prairie January 19, Food & Drink Roquette to build world’s http://fdiforum.net/mag/roquette-build- 2017 International largest pea-protein worlds-largest-pea-protein-processing- processing facility facility/

January 19, Sweets Roquette to build new pea https://www.sg- 2017 Processing protein processing facility network.org/en/news/20170119-roquette- to-build-new-pea-protein-processing- in Canada facility-in-canada-/ January 19, Food Business Roquette to invest over http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/n 2017 News C$400 million in pea ews_home/Supplier- protein plant in Canada Innovations/2017/01/Roquette_to_invest_o ver_C$400.aspx?ID=%7B8E8243BD-1567- 48D3-963E-FC00DC0427C9%7D

January 19, Food Roquette to Build World’s http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/R 2017 Ingredients 1st Largest Pea Protein oquette-to-Build-Worlds-Largest-Pea- Processing Plant Protein-Processing-Plant?frompage=news

January 19, Global Ag France’s Roquette invests http://www.globalaginvesting.com/frances- 2017 Investing $300M to build world’s roquette-invests-300m-build-worlds-largest- largest pea protein factory pea-protein-factory/

January 19, Ichainnel The Canadian Press - http://ichainnel.com/en/news/937171_0wzv 2017 French firm Roquette to p9-french-firm-roquette-to-build-400m-pea- build $400M pea processing-plant-in-manitoba/ processing plant in

Page 6 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

Manitoba

January 19, Manitoba Pulse MPSG encouraged by http://www.manitobapulse.ca/mpsg- 2017 Soybean $400M investment in encouraged-by-400m-pulse-investment-in- Growers Manitoba manitoba/

January 19, Nutraceutical Roquette to build the https://www.nutraceuticalbusinessreview.co 2017 Business largest pea protein m/news/article_page/Roquette_to_build_th Review processing facility to date e_largest_pea_protein_processing_facility_ to_date/124804

January 19, Portage Online Mayor and Reeve Pleased https://www.portageonline.com/local/mayor- 2017 With Roquette and-reeve-pleased-with-roquette

January 19, The Herald Pea protein processing http://eedition.cpheraldleader.com/doc/cp- 2017 Leader facility announced herald- leader_eedition/heraldleader/2017011901/3 .html#2

January 19, Mag-SeriesUSA New pea-protein http://magseriesusa.net/2017/01/19/new- 2017 processing facility coming pea-protein-processing-facility-coming-to- manitoba/ to Manitoba

January 19, Victoria Times Pea Plant in Works http://www.pressreader.com/canada/times- 2017 Colonist colonist/20170119/281831463437363

January 20, Agriculture.com France’s Roquette counts http://www.agriculture.com/markets/newswi 2017 on expanding Canada’s re/frances-roquette-counts-on-expanding- pea output canadas-pea-output

January 20, Alberta Farmer Roquette counts on http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/daily/roqu 2017 Express expanding Canadian pea ette-counts-on-expanding-canadian-pea- output output

January 20, Food Business Roquette to invest $301m http://www.food-business- 2017 Review to build new pea-protein review.com/news/roquette-to-build-pea- processing facility in protein-processing-facility-in-canada- Canada 190117-5720220

January 20, Food Dive Why Roquette is betting http://www.fooddive.com/news/why- 2017 big on pea protein roquette-is-betting-big-on-pea- protein/434380/

January 20, Manufacturing Roquette plans new http://www.automationmag.com/process/67 2017 Automation $400M Manitoba pea 21-roquette-invests-$400m-in-new- processing plant manitoba-pea-processing-plant

January 20, Portage Online Tax Exemptions Helped https://www.portageonline.com/local/tax- 2017 Bring New Plant To exemptions-helped-bring-new-plant-to- Portage portage

January 20, Syngenta Peas Have Room to Grow https://www.syngenta.ca/News/market- 2017 in Manitoba with New news/peas-have-room-to-grow-in- Processing Plant manitoba-with-new-processing-plant

Page 7 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

January 20, Thompson MLA Report – Largest http://www.thompsoncitizen.net/opinion/colu 2017 Citizen private-sector investment mnists/mla-report-jan-20-2017-1.7847724 in Manitoba History

January 20, Reuters France's Roquette counts http://www.reuters.com/article/france- 2017 on expanding Canada's roquette-canada- pea output idUSL1N1FA0TM?type=companyNews

January 20, AGCanada France's Roquette counts http://www.agcanada.com/daily/roquette- 2017 on expanding Canada's counts-on-expanding-canadian-pea-output/ pea output

January 20, Country Guide France's Roquette counts http://www.country-guide.ca/daily/roquette- 2017 on expanding Canada's counts-on-expanding-canadian-pea-output/ pea output

January 20, Canadiancattle France's Roquette counts http://www.canadiancattlemen.ca/daily/roqu 2017 men.ca on expanding Canada's ette-counts-on-expanding-canadian-pea- pea output output/

January 20, Manitoba France's Roquette counts http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/daily/roq 2017 Cooperator on expanding Canada's uette-counts-on-expanding-canadian-pea- pea output output/

January 20, Grainews.ca France's Roquette counts http://www.grainews.ca/daily/roquette- 2017 on expanding Canada's counts-on-expanding-canadian-pea-output/ pea output

January 20, Yahoo Finance France's Roquette counts http://finance.yahoo.com/news/frances- 2017 on expanding Canada's roquette-counts-expanding-canadas- pea output 170720171.html/

January 20, Investing.com France's Roquette counts https://ca.investing.com/news/stock-market- 2017 on expanding Canada's news/france's-roquette-counts-on- pea output expanding-canada's-pea-output-111042/

January 20, Business Insider France's Roquette counts http://www.businessinsider.com/r-frances- 2017 on expanding Canada's roquette-counts-on-expanding-canadas- pea output pea-output-2017-1?IR=T/

January 20, 4-traders France's Roquette counts http://www.4-traders.com/AGT-FOOD- 2017 on expanding Canada's AND-INGREDIENTS-1408945/news/AGT- pea output Food-and-Ingredients-France-s-Roquette- counts-on-expanding-Canada-s-pea- output-23727838/

January 20, The Globe and France's Roquette counts http://www.theglobeandmail.com/feeds/tho 2017 Mail on expanding Canada's mson-reuters/canada-business/frances- pea output roquette-counts-on-expanding-canadas- pea-output/article33683812/

January 20, Le journal des Lestrem. Roquette investit http://www.lejournaldesentreprises.com/regi 2017 entreprises 300 millions d'euros dans onale/Nord/lestrem-roquette-investit-300- millions-d-euros-dans-une-usine-au- canada-20-01-2017-314538.php/

Page 8 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

une usine au Canada

January 20, La Voix du Nord Roquette investit en masse http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/ 2017 au Canada

January 20, Marketline Roquette to build $300.7m Unknown 2017 pea-protein manufacturing facility in Manitoba

January 20, FARS News Canada : Province announces http://en.farsnews.com/ 2017 Agency historic investment in manitoba's food-processing sector

January 21, MyToba $400-million Pea http://mytoba.ca/featured/400-million-pea- 2017 Processing Plant For processing-plant-manitoba/ Manitoba

January 22, AGPB Roquette construira un http://www.agpb.com/d%C3%A9p%C3%AA 2017 grand site de production de che/roquette-construira-un-grand-site-de- protéines de pois au production-de-prot%C3%A9ines-de-pois- Canada au-canada/ Hervé Plagnol

January 22, MySteinback Historic investment in https://www.mysteinbach.ca/news/837/histo 2017 Manitoba’s food- ric-investment-in-manitobas-food- processing-sector-announced/ processing sector announced

January 23, Pembina Valley Pea Producers Expected https://www.pembinavalleyonline.com/ag- 2017 Online To Benefit From New news/pea-producers-expected-to-benefit- Processing Facility from-new-processing-facility

January 23, Specialty Food Roquette plans new pea https://www.specialtyfood.com/news/article/ 2017 Association protein factory roquette-plans-new-pea-protein-factory/

January 23, World Roquette to build pea- http://www.worldconstructionnetwork.com/n 2017 Construction protein manufacturing ews/roquette-to-build-pea-protein- Network facility manufacturing-facility/

January 23, 24 en Nord Pas- Roquette investit 300 http://www.lejournaldesentreprises.com/regio 2017 De-Calais millions d'euros dans une nale/Nord/pas-de-calais-roquette-investit-300- usine au Canada millions-d-euros-dans-une-usine-au-canada-20- 01-2017-314538.php

January 24, Canada21.tv Le nordique Roquette http://www.canada21.tv/detail.asp?subjectI 2017 s’implante au Canada D=47&emissionID=1625#sthash.7ilINfLm.d pbs

January 24, Daily French company to build http://dailycommercialnews.com/Projects/N 2017 Commercial pea processing facility in ews/2017/1/French-company-to-build-pea- News Manitoba processing-facility-in-Manitoba-1021250W/

January 24, Montana State For Montana, how http://ageconmt.com/montana-appealing-

Page 9 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

2017 University – appealing is a new pea new-pea-fractionation-plant/ College of fractionation plant? Agriculture

January 25, Classe Export Canada : Roquette Frères http://www.classe- 2017 Magazine investit 300 millions export.com/index.php/pays/18614-canada- d’euros dans une usine de roquette-freres-investit-300-millions-deuros- protéines de pois dans-une-usine-de-proteines-de-pois/

January 25, Clearly Veg World's Largest Pea http://www.clearlyveg.com/blog/2017/01/25/ 2017 Processing Plant Coming worlds-largest-pea-processing-plant- Soon to Canada coming-soon-canada

January 25, Mercy for Canada Is About to Open http://www.mercyforanimals.org/canada-is- 2017 Animals One of the World’s Largest about-to-open-one-of-the-worlds Plant-Based Protein Factories

January 26, One Green Peas are the future of http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/peas- 2017 Planet protein – here’s why are-the-future-of-protein/

January 26, The Selkirk $400M pea processing http://eedition.selkirkjournal.com/doc/Selkir 2017 Journal plant to open in Portage k-Journal/selkirk_journal- 0126/2017012501/22.html#22

January 26, The Western Pea plant excites sector http://www.producer.com/2017/01/pea- 2017 Producer plant-excites-sector/

January 26, The Morden Pea protein processing http://eedition.mordentimes.com/doc/Morde 2017 Times facility announced n-Times/morden_times- 0126/2017012501/30.html#30

January 27, Manitoba Co- $400-million pea plant http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news- 2017 Operator announced opinion/news/local/400-million-pea-plant- announced/

January 27, Portage Online Roquette Reps to Host https://www.portageonline.com/local/roquett 2017 Open House in Portage e-reps-to-host-open-house-in-portage-3

January 28, Portage Online RM of Portage Reeve https://www.portageonline.com/local/rm-of- 2017 Recalls Roquette Talks portage-reeve-recalls-roquette-talks

January 29, Portage Online Mayor Reflects On https://www.portageonline.com/local/mayor- 2017 Roquette Deal reflects-on-roquette-deal

January 29, Portage Online PRED Board Chair Talks https://www.portageonline.com/local/pred- 2017 Roquette Investment roquette

January 30, Veg News World's Largest Pea http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do;jsessio 2017 Protein Plant to Open in nid=8DAE10E193DC03675B098C77EA902 Canada 312?pageId=8958&catId=1

January 30, Vegan Lifestyle World’s largest protein http://www.veganlifestylemagazine.com/tag/ 2017 Magazine factory about to open in roquette/

Page 10 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

Date Source Title Reference

Canada

January 31, NUUtrition Roquette sites world’s http://biofuelsdigest.com/nuudigest/2017/01 2017 largest pea-protein /31/roquette-sites-worlds-largest-pea- processing plant in Canada protein-processing-plant-in-canada/

February 2, Portage Online Positive Night At https://portageonline.com/local/positive- 2017 Roquette's Open House In night-at-roquette-s-open-house-in-portage Portage

February 9, Portage Daily Roquette open house http://www.portagedailygraphic.com/2017/0 2017 Graphic hugely successful 2/09/roquette-open-house--hugely- successful

February 9, The Prairie Pea protein processing http://eedition.winklertimes.com/doc/prairief 2017 Farmer facility announced armer/prairie_farmer- 0209/2017020701/2.html#2

Page 11 of 11 Portage Pea Project Roquette Canada Ltd. Environment Act Proposal

aecom.com

AECOM 1/70