Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.1.13.1 Potential Archaeological Areas Archaeological and historic sites are both areas that preserve some component of past human activity. Archaeological sites, unlike historical sites, are composed of artifacts associated with a precontact period that precedes the written record. Historic sites are areas of human activity that were created after the appearance of writing and prior to the last 50 years. Modern sites are generally sites created later than 50 years before present.

Locations within the Footprint that are considered to have low archaeological potential are characterized by flat, featureless terrain, water saturated environments such as bogs and muskeg, moderately to steeply sloping terrain and previously disturbed lands (e.g., roadways and industrial developments). Areas such as these are not targeted for pedestrian assessment, however, these areas were assessed by desktop review as well as aerial photography.

Areas within the Footprint that are considered to have moderate to high archaeological potential and, targeted as a result, are characterized by at least one of the following features:

• areas of level, well-drained terrain adjacent to defined water sources (e.g., rivers, lakes);

• the level tops and benches of well-defined, elevated landforms, such as knolls and eskers, in areas of otherwise level terrain;

• level terrain adjacent to distinct breaks-in-slope;

• micro-topographic relief, providing well-drained landforms adjacent to or within low-lying areas or muskeg; and

• the locations of previously known archaeological or historic period sites.

Alberta In Alberta, Historical Resources Act (HRA) clearance from ACT, Historic Resources Management Branch, is required for the Project. An HRA Clearance Application was completed for the replacement areas in Alberta and submitted to Alberta Culture (currently known as ACT) through the Online Permitting and Clearance system. Should ACT determine that a Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) is required, an archaeological research permit will be obtained to conduct the HRIA and obtain HRA clearance prior to construction.

The proposed replacement pipeline construction right-of-way crosses two Natural Subregions within Alberta: the Central Parkland Natural Subregion; and the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Most of the lands crossed by the replacement pipeline route are agricultural and have been disturbed by plowing for cultivation, hay and tame pasture. Exceptions include smaller areas of aspen woodlands and mixed deciduous forest, treed pasture and fringes of native vegetation around wetlands and the edges of certain watercourses (Section 5.1.9).

The replacement pipeline route generally parallels an existing pipeline corridor that has been previously investigated under Historical Resources Impact Assessments (HRIAs) and Historical Resources Overviews. Most of the lands crossed by the replacement pipeline route have no Historical Resource Value (HRV), however, several quarter-sections have been assigned HRVs, and these have been assessed in the past under Alberta Culture Permits for pipeline developments which directly parallel the replacement pipeline route. Past Alberta Culture Permits which parallel the replacement pipeline route include 76-025, 88-015, 93-076, 94-025, 94-046, 99-040, 99-046,07-325, 12-217, 13-032 and 2007-159. The 24 previously recorded sites in proximity to the proposed construction right-of-way include: 3 precontact cairn sites (FcOq-13, FcOq-16 and FcOq-17), a likely historic stone cairn feature (FcOq-18), a stone circle (FcOq-19), 6 isolated precontact lithic finds (FcOq-15, FbOn-1, FcOo-5, FcOo-9, FcOo-10 and FdOs-1), 4 subsurface precontact artifact scatters (FcOp-3, FcOr-5, FdOr-2 and FdOr-13), a precontact surface lithics scatter (FcOp-4), 5 precontact campsites (FcOp-1, FcOp-2, FcOq-11, FcOq-12 and FdOs-2) and 3 historic sites (FbOn-H1, FdOr-H2 and FdOs-H3).

Page 5-200

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, approval for the Project from Saskatchewan Parks, Culture and Sport, Heritage Conservation Branch (HCB) is required under the Heritage Property Act (HPA). A desktop study was made of the Project using the HCB Developers’ Online Screening Tool, revealing that additional screening is required for portions of the replacement pipeline. Heritage Resource Review Referrals were submitted to the HCB for the Saskatchewan Replacement Areas. Should the HCB determine that an HRIA is required, an archaeological research permit will be obtained to conduct the HRIA and obtain approval for the construction of the replacement pipeline.

The proposed replacement pipeline construction right-of-way crosses the following three ecoregions within Saskatchewan: the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion; the Mixed Grassland Ecoregion and; the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion (Saskatchewan Research Council 2007).

The replacement pipeline route parallels/overlaps both the Enbridge ACEP and mainline corridor rights- of-way for a total of 534.2 km or 78.5% of its length in Saskatchewan, with the exceptions of 28 segments for an approximate total of 146.2 km which do not parallel an existing pipeline right-of-way.

The segments of the replacement pipeline route which do not parallel existing pipeline rights-of-way in Saskatchewan have not been assessed under previous permits issued by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport (Heritage Resources Branch) and will require a full HRIA.

For the Saskatchewan portion of the replacement pipeline route which parallels existing pipeline rights-of-way, heritage resource assessments have been conducted under Saskatchewan Ministry of Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport (Heritage Resources Branch) Permits 86-006, 93-069, 99-019, 01-048, 06-2170, 07-143, 07-094, 08-134, 08-135 and 09-093. There are 86 previously recorded archaeological sites in proximity to the proposed construction right-of-way in Saskatchewan, including 30 isolated finds of single artifacts, 26 artifact scatters, 5 subsurface prehistoric campsites, 17 stone feature sites including a possible burial, 6 historic sites and 2 sites listed by the Saskatchewan Heritage Resources Branch as being “uninterpreted”. Details of the previously recorded sites in Saskatchewan are listed in Table 5.1.13-1 below.

The five buried campsites are representative of much more substantial sites. Campsites are usually occupied by larger groups for longer periods of time. Consequently, there are often more activities taking place at the site (e.g., butchering, food preparation, tool making, etc.) all within a localized area. The concentrated activity tends to result in a much higher density of artifacts deposited at these sites. These campsites, if intact, have a high interpretive value and, if they cannot be avoided, require major mitigation (i.e., excavation).

The 17 stone feature sites in the vicinity of the proposed construction right-of-way range from a single stone cairn to multiple stone circle sites with 10-plus features within one site. The cairn sites vary in function and, therefore, vary in interpretive value. Most cairn sites represent directional markers with the site consisting of no more than the pile of cobbles. These sites have a very low interpretive value. In other cases, the cairns will be coverings for offerings or as a cache of goods deposited for use at a later date. These sites offer a higher interpretive value since the cache will often contain a substantial amount of material goods. While offerings will contain fewer materials, they are of spiritual significance and offer insight in past practices and beliefs. In rare instances, cairns are used as coverings for human remains (bundle burials). These burials are listed as Sites of a Special Nature by the HCB and are of special significance to First Nations groups and require avoidance. Site EdNh-22 is one such cairn site that, while untested, is believed to be a human burial due to the cairn’s size and its location on the landscape.

The six historic sites recorded adjacent to the proposed construction right-of-way consist of five historic homestead locations. These homestead locations vary from small scatters of historic artifacts to actual building remains including cellar depressions and foundations. Sites of this nature usually have a limited amount of domestic and agricultural artifacts associated with them. Avoidance of any standing structures is usually required at these sites. Mitigation for associated scatters of historic artifacts usually requires a surface collection and mapping of any structures, features (such as old cellar depressions) and the location of surface artifacts. For some homesteads established prior to 1890, there may be buried components to the site which may require mitigation excavations. Unless the homestead is of substantial age or is associated with a person of historic significance, these sites have a moderate interpretive value.

Page 5-201

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

The remaining historic site consists of a concrete railway bridge from 1921. This site is associated with early railway activity and would be considered to have a high interpretive value.

TABLE 5.1.13-1

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY IN SASKATCHEWAN

Sites by Borden Block Site Description Cultivation? FbOl-2 Pre-contact artifact find Yes FbOl-3 Flakes Yes FaOk-7 Core No FaOk-6 Bone, fire-cracked rock (FCR), chert flakes Yes FaOj-1 Flakes, core, FCR Yes ElOh-11 2 knives No ElOh-8 Prairie Side Notched point Yes ElOh-18 Flakes Yes ElOg-2 Biface, flake Yes ElOg-7 Shatter, core Yes ElOg-5 Flake Yes ElOg-6 Scraper Yes EkOf-2 Historic cellars, foundations No EkOf-1 Artifact find Yes EkOe-4 Duncan projectile point find Yes EkOd-7 Quartzite core Yes EkOd-3 Destroyed cairn No EkOd-9 Stone ring and artifacts (possibly destroyed) No EkOc-2 Artifact scatter Yes EkOc-4 Recent historic farm artifacts Yes EkOc-5 Flake Yes EkOb-2 Flake Yes EjOa-4 Small stone cairn No EjOa-5 Artifact find No EjOa-7 Cultivated artifact find, destroyed Yes EiNv-13 Cultivated artifact find Yes EiNu-1 10 stone circles, plus artifacts No EiNv-14 +100 artifacts cultivated, possibly Pelican Lake. Yes EiNu-5 Biface Yes EiNt-4 Flake Yes EiNs-17 Flake Yes EiNs-18 Flake Yes EiNr-3 1905 homestead Yes EiNr-5 Artifacts and bone on island in South Saskatchewan No River EhNr-47 Flake Yes EgNo-23 Multi-component sandhill site (Besant, Pelican Lake, No McKean). Mitigation likely required EgNo-36 Destroyed Yes EgNo-42 Destroyed Yes EgNo-43 Artifact/feature site. NOTE: this site is really No (aka EgNn-12) EgNn-12 due to error in Borden No. assignment EgNn-9 +2,000 artifacts. Besant and Pelican Lake. Has been No monitored with excavation EgNn-8 Historic foundation threatened by 1998 construction - No update required EgNn-3 Historic + pre-contact scatter; destroyed? Yes EgNm-2 Artifact scatter Yes EgNm-3 Possibly destroyed artifact find No EfNm-15 Artifact find, destroyed Yes EfNl-8 Artifact find Yes

Page 5-202

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.13-1 Cont'd

Sites by Borden Block Site Description Cultivation? EeNk-10 Cultivated artifact scatter - most of scatter located S of Yes 1998 right-of-way, however, all testing limited to right-of-way only. EeNk-22 Artifact scatter Yes EeNk-23 Artifact scatter Yes EeNj-15 Cairn + flakes No EeNi-7 Historic artifact scatter Yes EdNh-20 Cairn Yes EdNh-21 Pre-contact + historic artifact find Partial EdNh-22 Site of a Special Nature. Burial? Oval cairn. Untested No EdNh-31 Flake Yes EdNh-32 Flake Yes EdNh-38 2 stone circles No EdNh-40 4 fbr + 1 flake on floodplain. Deep testing found no Yes subsoils EdNh-33 Historic 1921 concrete bridge Yes EdNg-6 Paleo, McKean, fairly rich scatter No EdNg-23 Pelican Lake artifact scatter Yes EdNg-24 Artifact find on hill Yes EdNf-15 Paleo + historic. Eden, Pelican Lake, small Side- Yes notched; copper awl + horseshoe; possibly Allan + Bitterroot EcNf 3 Camp Site, artifact find, point 3-digit Yes EcNd-22 Greenhouse Site, artifact scatter, point 3-digit Yes EcNd-2 David Adams Site, artifact scatter, point 3-digit Yes EcNd-6 Artifact scatter Yes EcNc-20 Regina Loop 1, artifact find, point 3digit Yes EcNc-21 Davin Loop 1, artifact find No EcNb-24 Artifact find, point 3-digit No EcNb-4 Artifact/feature combo Yes EcNa-9 Many Bone 1, artifact find, point 3-digit Yes EcMx-2 Flake Yes EcMx-3 Flake Yes EbMw-1 2 flakes Yes EbMw-2 Core fragments Yes EbMw-3 Historic + 200 artifact scatter Yes EbMw-4 Scraper Yes EbMw-6 1 flake Yes EbMr-5 4 stone circles; 1 cairn; 1 flake No EbMr-6 5 stone circles (1 destroyed) No EbMr-7 5 stone circles (2 destroyed) No EbMr-9 Flake No EaMr-1 Artifact scatter on hill top with 40 pieces of Knife River Yes Flint EaMq-1 Artifact scatter Yes EaMm-2 Precontact + historic artifact find Yes DlMl-1 Site map shows artifact find, however, text talks about No stone circles DlMl-2 1 core near ravine Yes DkMi-4 2 earthen mounds; 1 rock cairn No DlMl-3 Isolated lithic find No DlMl-4 Stone cairn No EbMv-7 Stone circle and stone arc No EbMv-6 5 stone circles No EbMv-5 Artifact scatter No

Page 5-203

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Manitoba In Manitoba, approval for the Project from Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism, Historic Resources Branch (HRB) is required under the HRA. A Heritage Resources Overview (HRO) of the Project was previously conducted for the replacement in Area 7 (KP 959.8 to 980.4) and it was recommended that HRA clearance be granted for this portion of the replacement pipeline. The HRB approved construction of the Project for Area 7 on December 17, 2012. HROs for the remainder of the Replacement Areas in Manitoba have since been conducted and submitted to the HRB. Should the HRB determine that an HRIA is required, an archaeological research permit will be obtained to conduct the HRIA and obtain approval for construction of the replacement pipeline.

The proposed replacement pipeline construction right-of-way is located within the following three ecoregions within Manitoba: the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion; the Boreal Transition Ecoregion; and the Lake Manitoba Plain Ecoregion (MB CDC 2014, Friesen pers. comm.).

The proposed replacement pipeline route parallels/overlaps both the Enbridge ACEP and mainline corridor rights-of-way for a total of 221.0 km or 75.5% of its length in Manitoba, with the exception of 15 segments for an approximate total of 71.6 km which do not parallel an existing pipeline right-of-way.

The replacement pipeline route segments that do not parallel an existing pipeline right-of-way in Manitoba, have not been assessed under previous permits issued by Manitoba Culture, Heritage, Tourism and Sport (Historic Resources Branch) and will require a full HRIA.

For segments of the proposed replacement pipeline route in Manitoba which parallel the existing pipeline right-of-way, heritage resource assessments have been conducted under Manitoba Culture, Heritage, Tourism and Sport (Historic Resources Branch) Permits A51-07, A64-07, A52-07, A15-09, A30-07, A16- 08, A07-09, A57-09, A68-08, A05-10, A26-10, A08-11, A14-12 and A60-13. The 41 previously recorded sites in proximity to the proposed construction right-of-way include a complex, multi-component campsite and artifact scatter at Pipestone Creek (DkMi-5), 2 camp/kill sites (DkMh-1, DkMi-3), a kill site (DkMh-8), a prehistoric mound feature (unconfirmed) (DkMh-Y1), 3 burial sites (DhLn-1, DkMh-10 and DkMc-1), 9 isolated lithic finds (DiLr-3, DjLx-3, DkMd-8, DkMe-5, DkMh-3, DjLw-4, DjLl-8, DjLv-10 and DjLv-14), 3 small (n<10) artifact scatters (DkMh-18, DkMc-2 and DkMd-12), 10 prehistoric campsites (DjMb-26, DkMh-19, DkMh-7, DkMd-7, DkMd-9, DkMi-1, DjLw-5, DjLw-9 and DiLr-5), a historic farmstead (DjLv-13), the culturally significant Thornhill Burial Mounds site (DhLn-1) and 9 sites listed by the Manitoba HRB as being “uninterpreted” (DkMh-13, DkMh-6, DkMh-9, DkMi-2, DiLr-4, DiLq-1, DhLo-3, DhLn-14 and DhLn- 15).

Located on the west side of Pipestone Creek in 10-34-9-29 WPM, DkMi-5 is a large intact, multi-component, stratified site. The artifact assemblages and recognizable activity areas demonstrate a continuity of land use by peoples of the Early, Middle and Late Precontact Periods, focussed on hunting and processing of bison and smaller game at this location, since ca. 7,930 radiocarbon years before present (rcybp) until 1,830 rcybp or later. Evidence of activities including hide work, lithic tool production, use of hearths and the processing of bison suggest that the site was used as a camp as well as a processing area. Given the intact and well-preserved nature of DkMi-5, the activities indicated by the artifact assemblage and the rarity of such early sites in western Canada, site DkMi-5 is an important archaeological site, offering numerous avenues of investigation to fill in some of the gaps regarding ancestral First Nations lifeways in southwest Manitoba.

The other campsites are also representative of substantial sites. Campsites are usually occupied by larger groups for longer periods of time. Consequently, there are often more activities taking place at the site (e.g., butchering, food preparation, tool making, etc.), all within a localized area. The concentrated activity tends to result in a much higher density of artifacts deposited at these sites. Campsites are considered to have a high interpretive value and, if they cannot be avoided, require major mitigation (i.e., excavation).

There is one historic homestead located adjacent to the proposed construction right-of-way in Manitoba. Sites of this nature usually have a limited amount of domestic and agricultural artifacts associated with the sites. Avoidance of any standing structures is usually required at these sites. Mitigation for associated scatters of historic artifacts usually requires a surface collection and mapping of any structures, features (such as old cellar depressions) and the location of surface artifacts. For some homesteads established

Page 5-204

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

prior to 1890, there may be buried components to the site, which may require mitigative excavations. Unless the homestead is of substantial age or is associated with a person of historic significance, these sites are considered to have a moderate interpretive value.

The most important known site in the immediate vicinity of the proposed construction right-of-way is Thornhill Burial Mounds. These mounds usually contain numerous human burials that often have a large quantity of artifacts left at the burials as grave goods. Burial mounds are considered to have a very high interpretive value and are of spiritual significance for local Aboriginal groups. Avoidance of these sites is always the only mitigation measure available. Areas adjacent to the mounds also hold high potential since the mounds have a long history of spiritual significance for First Nations groups. Artifacts are usually deposited around the mounds as prayer offerings.

5.1.13.2 Potential Palaeontological Areas The study of palaeontology seeks information about several aspects of past organisms; for example, their identity, origin, environment and evolution. There are two types of palaeontological resources: body fossils; and trace fossils. Body fossils are the remnants of an organism, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, that is embedded and preserved within the earth’s crust. Trace fossils on the other hand consist of tracks, burrows, coprolites and marks left by feeding, which reflect the organisms’ behaviors. Organisms that are discovered during palaeontological work include single-celled organisms, plants, fungi and both invertebrate and vertebrate animals.

Alberta In Alberta, HRA clearance from ACT, Historic Resources Management Branch, is required for the Project. An HRA Clearance Application was completed for the replacement areas in Alberta and submitted to Alberta Culture (currently known as ACT) through the Online Permitting and Clearance system. Should ACT determine that an HRIA is required, a palaeontological research permit will be obtained to conduct the HRIA and obtain HRA clearance prior to construction.

There is a low potential for encountering palaeontological resources during the construction phase of the replacement pipeline in Alberta due to poor exposure of fossil-bearing geological units, which are buried beneath Quaternary moraine and gravel deposits, according to past assessments of pipeline corridors which parallel the replacement pipeline. Areas of potential concern include the Battle River valley and Eyehill Creek, where Late Cretaceous Bearpaw Formation deposits may be exposed during construction, especially if trenching is used. The Bearpaw Formation is widely spread throughout southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, and contains a rich marine fauna including invertebrates such as molluscs (ammonites, bivalves, gastropods, rudists, sepiods and scaphopods), bryozoans, brachiopods, annelids, ophioderms and vertebrates (bony fish, sharks, rays, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, sea turtles and the occasional dinosaur). In addition, plant remains and a significant number of microfossils (foraminifera, diatoms, dinoflagellates, pollen and spores) can be found in the Bearpaw Formation.

Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, approval for the Project from Saskatchewan Parks, Culture and Sport, HCB is required under the HPA. A desktop study was made of the Project using the HCB Developers’ Online Screening Tool, revealing that additional screening is required for portions of the replacement pipeline. Heritage Resource Review Referrals were submitted to the HCB for the Saskatchewan Replacement Areas. Should the HCB determine that an HRIA is required, a palaeontological research permit will be obtained to conduct the HRIA and obtain approval for construction of the replacement pipeline.

There is a low potential for encountering palaeontological resources during the construction phase of the replacement pipeline in most of Saskatchewan due to poor exposure of fossil-bearing geological units, which lie buried beneath Pleistocene Floral Formation glacial till and gravel deposits, according to past assessments of pipelines which parallel the replacement pipeline. Areas of potential concern include the South Saskatchewan River and the Qu’Appelle River valleys, where bedrock exposures of the Late Cretaceous Bearpaw Formation may be present. Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene plant material may be present within depressions in hummocky moraine crossed by the replacement pipeline route. The Muddy Lake Saskatchewan vertebrate site is not located in proximity of the replacement pipeline construction right-of-way and will not be affected by the development.

Page 5-205

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Manitoba In Manitoba, approval for the Project from Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism HRB is required under the HRA. Should the HRB determine that an HRIA is required, a palaeontological research permit will be obtained to conduct the HRIA and obtain approval for construction of the replacement pipeline.

According to past assessments of pipelines which parallel the replacement pipeline route, there is a low potential for encountering palaeontological resources during the construction phase of the Project for most of Manitoba due to poor exposure of fossil-bearing units, which may be buried deeply under Pleistocene Floral Formation glacial till and gravel deposits along with Holocene alluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits. However, concern does exist for the exposure of palaeontological resources in the following two areas: the Pembina Member (Pierre Shale) units at the proposed Souris River crossing, and; the chalky, fossil-rich, Pembina Member (Niobrara Formation) unit of the Manitoba Escarpment in the Pembina Hills, which are encountered along the proposed replacement pipeline construction right-of- way from approximately 5 km west of Morden to Gretna Station.

5.1.14 Traditional Land and Resource Use In planning development projects, Enbridge engages with Aboriginal groups that may be affected by a proposed development or that may have an interest in the development based on the proximity of their community to the Project. Details of the Aboriginal engagement program for the Project are provided in Section 3. Since June 2013, Enbridge has engaged with the following Aboriginal groups regarding the Project.

TABLE 5.1.14-1

ABORIGINAL GROUPS ENGAGED REGARDING THE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PIPELINE

Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba First Nations • Alexander First Nation • Carry the Kettle First Nation • Birdtail Sioux Dakota First • Enoch Cree Nation • Cowessess First Nation Nation • Ermineskin Cree Nation • Flying Dust First Nation • Canupawakpa Dakota Nation • Frog Lake First Nation • George Gordon First Nation • Dakota Plains First Nation • Kainai Nation • Kahkewistahaw First Nation • Dakota Tipi First Nation • Louis Bull First Nation • Kawacatoose First Nation • Long Plain First Nation • Montana First Nation • Keeseekoose First Nation • Roseau River First Nation • Samson Cree Nation • Little Black Bear Band • Sioux Valley Dakota Nation • Siksika First Nation • Little Pine First Nation • Swan Lake First Nation • Tsuu T'ina First Nation • Moosomin First Nation • Mosquito Grizzly Bear's Head First Nation • Muscowpetung First Nation • Muskowekwan First Nation • Nekaneet First Nation • Ocean Man First Nation • Ochapowace First Nation • Okanese First Nation • Onion Lake Cree Nation • Pasqua First Nation • Peepeekisis First Nation • Pheasant Rump Nakota First Nation • Piapot First Nation • Poundmaker First Nation • Red Pheasant First Nation • Sakimay First Nation • Standing Buffalo First Nation • Star Blanket Cree Nation • Sweetgrass First Nation • White Bear First Nation • Whitecap Dakota Nation

Page 5-206

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.14-1 Cont'd

Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Métis • Métis Nation of Alberta • Métis Nation - Saskatchewan • Manitoba Métis Federation • Region 2, Metis Nation of • The Métis Nation SK Eastern Alberta Region 3, Métis Nation Region III of Alberta • The Métis Nation SK Western • Region 4, Metis Nation of Region IA Alberta • The Métis Nation SK Western Region IIA Regional Organizations • Assembly of First Nations, • Assembly of First Nations - • Assembly of First Nations, Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba • Battleford Agency Tribal Chiefs • Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs • Battlefords Tribal Council • Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council • Federation of Saskatchewan Indian • Southern Chiefs' Organization Nations • Native Communications Inc. • File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council • Southern Chiefs' Organization • First Nations University • Treaty 2 – Anishinaabe • Saskatchewan First Nations Centre Agowidiiwinan of Excellence • Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology • Saskatoon Tribal Council National Organizations • Congress of Aboriginal Peoples • Métis National Council • Aboriginal Chamber of Commerce

The TLRU LSA encompasses and extends beyond the Footprint to include the LSA boundaries of water quality and quantity, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and heritage resources, since TLU is dependent upon these resources. Accordingly, the TLRU LSA ranges from a 110 m wide band to a 2 km wide band extending 55 m to 1 km from the centreline (i.e., 55 m to 1 km on both sides) and is considered to be an area where there is a reasonable potential for Project activities to affect existing TLRU (e.g., fishing, hunting and plant gathering).

The replacement pipeline route crosses provincial Crown land for approximately 59.1 km (5.1% of the total length of the pipeline route). The Line 3 replacement pipeline also crosses Swan Lake I.R. 7 from SKP 1170.4 to SKP 1171.2. Table 5.1.14-2 identifies the location of the Crown land along the replacement pipeline route.

TABLE 5.1.14-2

CROWN LAND ALONG THE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PIPELINE ROUTE

Province SKP Range (Approx.) Legal Location Land Use Crown Dispositions Access Roads Alberta SKP 185.8 to SKP 186.2 NW 17-42-9 W4M Treed Pasture Bed and Shore of Lake No access SKP 191.2 to SKP 191.7 NW 11-42-9 W4M Treed pasture Grazing Lease 034882 County road SKP 191.7 to SKP 192.8 NE 11-42-9 W4M Treed pasture Grazing Lease 034882 County road SKP 194.7 to SKP 195.6 NW 6-42-8 W4M Hay land Farm Development Lease 771715 County road SKP 205 to SKP 205.6 NE 24-41-8 W4M Tame pasture Grazing Lease 036095 and 038589 Township road PNT 780915 SKP 206.1 to SKP 207.1 SW 19-41-7 W4M Tame pasture Grazing Lease 830225 and 036095 Township road PNT 780363 Consultative Notation 990025 SKP 229.6 to SKP 229.9 SE 19-40-5 W4M Tame pasture Grazing Lease 032497 No access PNT 731909

Page 5-207

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.14-2 Cont’d

Province SKP Range (Approx.) Legal Location Land Use Crown Dispositions Access Roads Alberta SKP 229.9 to SKP 229.9 NE 18-40-5 W4M Tame pasture Grazing Lease 032497 No access (cont’d) PNT 731909 SKP 233.6 to SKP 234.6 NW 10-40-5 W4M Treed pasture Grazing Lease 035169 No access SKP 243.5 to SKP 243.6 NE 29-39-4 W4M Hay land Protective Notation No access Saskatchewan SKP 286 to SKP 286.6 SE 30-37-28 W3M Cultivated land None No access SKP 286.6 to SKP 287 NE 19-37-28 W3M Native Prairie None No access SKP 335.3 to SKP 336.0 NE 9-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 336.0 to SKP 336.2 SE 9-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 336.2 to SKP 337.1 SW 10-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 337.2 to SKP 337.4 SE 10-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 337.5 to SKP 338.3 NE 3-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 338.3 to SKP 338.8 NW 2-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 338.8 to SKP 339.2 SW 2-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 339.3 to SKP 340.1 SE 2-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 340.1 to SKP 340.4 SW 1-35-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 340.5 to SKP 341.0 NW 35-34-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 341 to SKP 341.9 NE 35-34-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 342.2 to SKP 342.9 SW 36-34-24 W3M Native prairie Progress Community Pasture No access SKP 345.7 to SKP 346.4 SW 29-34-23 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 346.6 to SKP 347.4 SE 29-34-23 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 358.9 to SKP 359.7 SE 5-34-22 W3M Native prairie None No access SKP 359.7 to SKP 360.0 SW 4-34-22 W3M Native prairie None No access SKP 511.4 to SKP 511.8 NW 4-28-8 W3M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 515.4 to SKP 515.6 SW 2-28-8 W3M Tame pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 517 to SKP 517.9 NE 36-27-8 W3M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 517.9 to SKP 518.1 NW 31-27-7 W3M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 518.1 to SKP 518.8 SW 31-27-7 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 518.8 to SKP 519.6 SE 31-27-7 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 519.6 to SKP 520.5 SW 32-27-7 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 520.5 to SKP 520.9 SE 32-27-7 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 520.9 to SKP 521.4 NE 29-27-7 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 521.4 to SKP 522.3 NW 28-27-7 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 522.3 to SKP 523.4 SE 28-27-7 W3M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 524.0 to SKP 524.3 NW 22-27-7 W3M Tame pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 526.1 to SKP 527.2 SE 23-27-7 W3M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 527.3 to SKP 528.1 NW 13-27-7 W3M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 545.5 to SKP 545.9 NW 16-26-5 W3M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 572.3 to SKP 573.4 NE 34-24-3 W3M Native prairie FWDF Land No access SKP 573.4 to SKP 574.1 NW 35-24-3 W3M Native prairie FWDF Land No access SKP 574.1 to SKP 574.5 NE 35-24-3 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture SKP 574.5 to SKP 575.0 SE 35-24-3 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture SKP 575.0 to SKP 575.9 SW 36-24-3 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture SKP 576.0 to SKP 576.1 NW 25-24-3 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture

Page 5-208

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.14-2 Cont’d

Province SKP Range (Approx.) Legal Location Land Use Crown Dispositions Access Roads Saskatchewan SKP 576.1 to SKP 577.0 NE 25-24-3 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access (cont’d) Elbow Community Pasture SKP 577.0 to SKP 577.4 NW 30-24-2 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture SKP 577.4 to SKP 578.0 SW 30-24-2 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture SKP 578 to SKP 578.9 SE 30-24-2 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture SKP 578.9 to SKP 579.3 NE 19-24-2 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture SKP 579.5 to SKP 580.0 NW 20-24-2 W3M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access Elbow Community Pasture SKP 580.0 to SKP 580.8 SE 20-24-2 W3M Shrub pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 588.2 to SKP 589.2 SW 6-24-1 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 589.2 to SKP 589.6 SE 6-24-1 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 589.6 to SKP 590.2 NE 31-23-1 W3M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 597.1 to SKP 598.1 SE 23-23-1 W3M Tame pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 599.2 to SKP 599.2 NW 13-23-1 W3M Hay land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 600.4 to SKP 600.6 SW 16-23-29 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 600.6 to SKP 601 NW 9-23-29 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 601 to SKP 602 NE 9-23-29 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 602 to SKP 602.1 NW 10-23-29 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 602.1 to SKP 603 SW 10-23-29 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 603 to SKP 603.7 SE 10-23-29 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 603.7 to SKP 604.1 NE 3-23-29 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 607 to SKP 607.5 NW 35-22-29 W2M Shrub pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 608.2 to SKP 608.5 SE 35-22-29 W2M Shrub pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 608.5 to SKP 609.5 SW 36-22-29 W2M Shrub pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 609.5 to SKP 610 SE 36-22-29 W2M Shrub pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 610 to SKP 610.4 NE 25-22-29 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 610.4 to SKP 611.5 NW 30-22-28 W2M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 620.3 SE 11-22-28 W2M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 661.7 to SKP 662.2 NE 29-19-24 W2M Native prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 662.2 to SKP 662.7 SE 29-19-24 W2M Native Prairie Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 799.9 to SKP 800.6 SW 11-15-12 W2M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land Route 48 Wildlife Habitat Protection Area Kendal Game Reserve SKP 800.1 to SKP 801.5 SE 11-15-12 W2M Tame prairie Agricultural Crown Land Route 48 Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 838.3 to SKP 838.5 SE 17-14-08 W2M Cultivated land None No access SKP 838.5 to SKP 839.4 SW 16-14-08 W2M Tame pasture and None No access native pasture SKP 911.6 to SKP 911.8 NE 17-12-1 W2M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access SKP 915.5 to SKP 916.3 NW 11-12-1 W2M Tame pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 916.3 to SKP 917.2 NE 11-12-1 W2M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land No access and treed pasture Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 943.4 to SKP 944.2 NE 36-10-32 W1M Hay land Agricultural Crown Land Route 48 SKP 944.2 to SKP 945.1 NW 31-10-31 W1M Hay land Agricultural Crown Land Route 48 SKP 948.7 to SKP 949.3 NE 28-10-31 W1M Hay land Agricultural Crown Land Route 48 Railroad

Page 5-209

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.14-2 Cont’d

Province SKP Range (Approx.) Legal Location Land Use Crown Dispositions Access Roads Saskatchewan SKP 954.1 to SKP 954.9 SE 24-10-31 W1M Tame pasture Agricultural Crown Land Route 48 (cont’d) SKP 954.9 to SKP 955.8 SW 19-10-30 W1M Cultivated land Agricultural Crown Land Route 48 SKP 962.1 to SKP 962.8 NW 11-10-30 W1M Treed pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 962.8 to SKP 962.9 SW 11-10-30 W1M Treed pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area SKP 962.9 to SKP 963.8 NE 11-10-30 W1M Tame pasture Agricultural Crown Land No access Wildlife Habitat Protection Area Manitoba SKP 1032.8 to NE 28-8-23 WPM Treed pasture None No access SKP 1033.1 SKP 1163.4 to NE 23-5-11 WPM Swan Lake I.R. 7, None Route 34 SKP 1164.3 cultivated land SKP 1255.6 to NW 5-2-3 WPM Cultivated land None Route 201 SKP 1256.7 and river SKP 1262.9 to NW 25-1-3 WPM Cultivated land None No access SKP 1263.0 and river SKP 1267.2 to NE 20-1-2 WPM Cultivated land None No access SKP 1267.3 and river

The Crown land identified in Table 5.1.14-2 is accessible to Aboriginal groups, however, through engagement at the time of writing for the Line 3 replacement pipeline, Enbridge has not been made aware of any use of these lands for traditional activities. Nevertheless, Enbridge assumes that TLRU activities including fishing, hunting and plant gathering are potentially practiced at these locations since a review of available literature indicates that Aboriginal groups have historically used and presently use Crown lands and resources within the TLRU LSA to maintain a traditional lifestyle (TERA Environmental Consultants 2007d, RM of Edenwold 2010, RM of Sherwood 2013, RM of Francis 2012).

Enbridge does not believe that formal TLRU studies are necessary for most of the replacement pipeline route, since the current land tenure and land use preclude, to a large extent, the practice of traditional activities on the lands in question. However, Enbridge will continue to work with Aboriginal groups to identify Project-related interests and concerns and consider site-specific TLRU, should any be brought forward, into Project planning and mitigation.

Should any interests, concerns and/or mitigation recommendations be identified during ongoing engagement with interested Aboriginal groups, the applicable measures outlined in the TLRU Sites Discovery Contingency Plan will be implemented (Appendix 1A).

5.1.15 Social and Cultural Well-Being This subsection presents an overview of existing conditions in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA pertaining to social and cultural well-being (Figures 5.1.15-1 to 5.1.15-3). A detailed discussion of the existing conditions of social and cultural well-being is available in Section 3.1.2 in Appendix 11. The potential effects related to the replacement pipeline and key mitigation pertaining to social and cultural well-being are discussed in Section 6.2.15.

The spatial boundary of the Socio-economic LSA is defined as the ZOI in which social and cultural well-being is most likely to be affected by the construction and operations of the Project. This consists of the boundaries of municipalities and Aboriginal groups, where it can be reasonably expected that direct effects from Project activities will occur. The spatial boundary for the Socio-economic RSA consists of the MD and RMs directly or indirectly affected by the Project. The Socio-economic LSA and RSA are described in greater detail in Section 6.2.15, including the rationale for the determination of these boundaries.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues or concerns were identified specifically regarding social and cultural well-being in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA. However, some municipal representatives indicated that the Project may indirectly impact the social and

Page 5-210

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427 cultural well-being of local residents and land users in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA, such as the presence of temporary workforce populations for example, and are, therefore relevant to the assessment of social and cultural well-being and are discussed in Section 6.0.

Page 5-211

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6 114°0'0"W 113°0'0"W 112°0'0"W 111°0'0"W 110°0'0"W

Makwa 54°0'0"N Majeau Lower Redwater Therien Frog Lake

Legal 54°0'0"N Lake St. Paul Ministikwan 28 Lake Elk Lake Lac La UV Lake 33 Bon Whitford Upper Point UV Nonne Therien ¯ November 2014 Lake Lake Accord UV45 Lake Morinville Bruderheim FIGURE 5.1.15-1 Lac Ste Gibbons Anne Lake Lamont SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AREA 28A 15 BOUNDARIES r UV UV Two 43 e ALBERTA ALBERTA UV v Onoway UV37 i Hills R Fort St. n ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC.

o SASKATCHEWAN e Elk Island LINE 3 REPLACEMENT g Saskatchewan Walburg Stony r National PROGRAM S t u Edmonton Sherwood

Park Mundare Nor Plain th 16X 10427 UV !(SKP 0 Park Beaverhill !. V S Lake e a Spruce Edmonton Cooking Vegreville r sk !( Existing Terminal/Station

m 3 a t

Lake i UV c l h Grove io !. Station Kilometre Post

n e wa 60 Beaumont R n ver Line 3 Replacement Pipeline Route UV Tofield Birch Ri 16 ive Devon UV Lake r Vermilion Existing Line 3 Pipeline Leduc Calmar Lloydminster UV892 Highway UV39 UV303 Road !( UV17 Marshall Railway

Kingman 14 Watercourse Pigeon Millet UV Viking Maidstone Lake Lashburn Waterbody Bittern Camrose tle River Lake SKP 100 Bat City/Town/Village

53°0'0"N Wetaskiwin !. 26 23 UV UV Indian Reserve B 53°0'0"N a UV41 tt le 36 Military R 2A Driedmeat !( UV i UV v e Lake r 2 Strome Municipal Boundary UV Wainwright Daysland Manitou Killam Park/Protected Area 13 Lake Red Deer UV Socio-Economic Local Study Area Lake Camp Wainwright Sedgewick Ponoka Military Reserve Socio-Economic Regional Study Area Rimbey 21 k 53 UV Hardisty e UV e

r SCALE: 1:1,000,000 C

Gull 56 km !( e UV 0 10 20 40

20 Lake Bashaw n UV o Buffalo Hardisty SKP 200 (All Locations Approximate) t !. s Lake b

Lacombe i Bentley R

50 Sylvan Blackfalds UV Hougher Lake UTM Zone 12N Lake !( Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Railways, Roads: USNIMA 2000; Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004; City/Town/Municipal Red Deer Provost Boundaries: AltaLIS 2014; Parks/Protected Areas: ATPR 2012; Indian Stettler Metiskow Macklin Reserves: Government of Canada 2014; Military Reserves: IHS Inc. Sylvan 2013; Saskatchewan Parks/Protected Areas and Municipal Boundaries: ISCS 2014. Lake 11 UV Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data Marion are advised that errors in the data may be present. Castor Lake Sounding Mapped By: TM Checked By: LA Penhold 12 Lake 31 UV SKP 300 UV 42 Gough !.!( 54 UV UV Lake Sullivan Coronation . Cactus Lake Luseland Innisfail Lake R Hamilton r 317 e UV e Lake MB 52°0'0"N AB SK D

d Bowden 52°0'0"N e R e Farrell Kirkpatrick ! Edmonton tl Grassy it Lake Lake Saskatoon L Island 51 !( ! Olds Trochu UV Lake Regina Winnipeg ! 27 ! UV ! Gretna 114°0'0"W 113°0'0"W 112°0'0"W 111°0'0"W 110°0'0"W U.S.A.

P:\GIS_Proj2\10K\10400_to_10499\10427\MAP_FILES\ESA\Rev3\Section5\L3RP_Fig5_1_15_1_Section5_AB_Social_R3_14_08_2014.mxd Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6 110°0'0"W 109°0'0"W 108°0'0"W 107°0'0"W 106°0'0"W Basin 312 225 Waldheim UV UV Wakaw Lake Redberry Rosthern Lake Wakaw UV29 UV340 Lake 17 Hepburn November 2014 ¯ UV Unity Hague 20 Cudworth UV Provost Wilkie Radisson UV41 FIGURE 5.1.15-2 12 SHEET 1 OF 2 13 Macklin UV Buffer UV Muddy Scott UV16 14 N Lake SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AREA Lake UV o rt Langham Osler Muskiki BOUNDARIES h Ri S n v e r Lake SASKATCHEWAN 376 a skat chewa Aberdeen UV 305 Vonda 27 Dalmeny UV UV ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Warman 374 Tramping Bruno LINE 3 REPLACEMENT SKP 300 UV Martensville PROGRAM !.!( Lake Whiteshore 10427 Cactus Lake Lake Luseland Asquith !( Biggar Rice Saskatoon UV5 Existing Terminal/Station Lake !.

52°0'0"N Station Kilometre Post 60 UV Line 3 Replacement Pipeline Route Kerrobert 51 Existing Line 3 Pipeline UV Delisle Colonsay 52°0'0"N !( 397 892 Highway Opuntia UV UV Kerrobert Dodsland Blackstrap Allan Lake Road 31 Goose Reservoir UV Dundurn Beaufield Lake Railway SKP 400 !. Lake 365 Watercourse Kiyu UV UV317 Lake 45 11 Watrous Waterbody !( UV UV 219 UV307 Herschel Zealandia UV Hanley City/Town/Village Indian Reserve

Kindersley Rosetown Military UV7 Milden UV2 15 9 Outlook UV Municipal Boundary UV UV21 !( Bad Lake SKP 500 Park/Protected Area 4 Milden !. UV Socio-Economic Local Study Area

ALBERTA Imperial Socio-Economic Regional Study Area Eatonia UV44 SASKATCHEWAN Davidson UV30 SCALE: 1:1,000,000 Elrose km Eston Loreburn 0 10 20 40 !( White Last (All Locations Approximate) Loreburn Mountain Bear Elbow Lake Lake

51°0'0"N Craik 373 UV 19 UTM Zone 13N UV Q u 'Appel Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Roads, Railways: Leader 42 le USNIMA 2000; Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004; City/Town, Municipal UV Boundaries and Parks/Protected Areas: ISCS 2014; Indian Reserve: R SKP 600 Craik 51°0'0"N i !. Government of Canada 2014; Military Reserve: IHS Inc. 2013. Diefenbaker v e !( Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with Lake r the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data A are advised that errors in the data may be present. Kyle 342 367 r UV Central UV m Rive Mapped By: TM Checked By: LA Butte r Burstall UV32 UV321 Buffalo Pound ou r Cabri S th e Lake S katc v AB a s h i SK MB e R wan !( Pelican ! Lake UV202 Bethune Edmonton 371 37 Saskatoon UV UV ! Chaplin Moose 301 Regina Lake UV ! Winnipeg Herbert UV1 ! 332 Morse 58 Jaw ! UV UV Gretna 110°0'0"W 109°0'0"W 108°0'0"W 107°0'0"W 106°0'0"W U.S.A.

P:\GIS_Proj2\10K\10400_to_10499\10427\MAP_FILES\ESA\Rev3\Section5\L3RP_Fig5_1_15_2_Section5_SK_Social_R3_14_08_2014.mxd

M o o s e J aw R iv er Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6 106°0'0"W 105°0'0"W 104°0'0"W 103°0'0"W 102°0'0"W

Imperial Springside Govan Davidson UV369 Roblin Yorkton 5 44 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV November 2014 UV ¯ 15 52 16A ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV UV UV ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Ituna FIGURE 5.1.15-2 ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ SHEET 2 OF 2 381 UV 83 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AREA Strasbourg Saltcoats UV BOUNDARIES Craik SASKATCHEWAN 51°0'0"N ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ 16 ￿￿ 20 SASKATCHEWAN ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. ￿￿ UV 310 UV 51°0'0"N UV ￿￿ SKP 600 Craik 220 Melville 80 LINE 3 REPLACEMENT ￿￿ !. UV Southey Cupar UV MANITOBA ￿￿ !( Bredenbury PROGRAM ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ Churchbridge 10427 ￿￿ ￿￿ 322 STANDING Langenburg ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV Russell ￿￿ BUFFALO ￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV10 !( Existing Terminal/Station 354 Regina MUSCOWPETUNG I.R. 78 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV I.R. 80 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ !. Station Kilometre Post PIAPOT INDIAN PASQUA Balcarres ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Beach Lemberg Bethune I.R. 79 22 RESERVE NO. 75 Fort UV Line 3 Replacement Pipeline Route ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ 54 Esterhazy ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV TREATY FOUR RESERVE Qu'appelle Lumsden GROUNDS I.R. No. 77 UV56 ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ Existing Line 3 Pipeline 42 UV11 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ UV ￿￿ !( ￿￿ 892 364 ￿￿ Highway ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV UV Indian ￿￿￿￿￿￿ KAHKEWISTAHAW ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ SAKIMAY ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿ Bethune Qu'appelle ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ I.R. 72 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ Road Head ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ I.R. 74 ￿￿ Pilot ￿￿ ￿￿ Regina OCHAPOWACE ￿￿ Balgonie 1 ￿￿ Railway Butte UV Sintaluta COWESSESS I.R. 71 ￿￿ Moose 301 ￿￿ UV SKP 700 Wolseley NO. 73 ￿￿￿￿ Watercourse Jaw !. Grand White Grenfell Rocanville ￿￿ Pense Broadview Coulee City Waterbody !( Whitewood UV41 Vibank ASSINIBOINE 308 8 UV City/Town/Village Rowatt I.R. 76 UV Odessa Wapella !( Indian Reserve 363 UV 2 Odessa SKP 800 UV !. Glenavon Military Kendal Moosomin !( Municipal Boundary ￿￿ Rouleau Montmartre ￿￿ Glenavon ￿￿ ￿￿ Kipling Fleming Park/Protected Area ￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ Francis UV339 ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ 306 !( SKP 900 Socio-Economic Local Study Area ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ UV !. ￿￿￿￿ 33 ￿￿￿￿ UV Langbank 50°0'0"N Socio-Economic Regional Study Area Milestone 50°0'0"N Mossbank Wawota Fairlight SCALE: 1:1,000,000 km 6 48 Maryfield 0 10 20 40 334 UV 35 UV UV UV 9 (All Locations Approximate) Yellow UV Grass 36 OCEAN MAN !( UV ￿￿ I.R. 69 ￿￿ 47 ￿￿ UV ￿￿ Cromer ￿￿ WHITE BEAR ￿￿ ￿￿ UTM Zone 13N Stoughton I.R. No. 70 ￿￿ 39 Weyburn ￿￿ Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Roads, Railways: UV ￿￿ Carlyle USNIMA 2000; Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004; City/Town, Municipal 13 Arcola ￿￿ Boundaries and Parks/Protected Areas: ISCS 2014; Indian Reserve: UV Redvers Government of Canada 2014; Military Reserve: IHS Inc. 2013. Assiniboia Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data Ogema ￿￿ are advised that errors in the data may be present. ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ Mapped By: TM Checked By: LA ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ 377 Radville ￿￿ Willow ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV Midale Lampman UV361 Bunch Bengough 28 UV 318 AB SK MB ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV 34 Alameda ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ UV ￿￿Oxbow ! Edmonton ￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ 3 ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ Saskatoon UV ! ￿￿ Rockglen ￿￿￿￿￿￿￿￿ ￿￿ Estevan ￿￿ Carnduff

￿￿ Regina ! Winnipeg 18 Bienfait ￿￿ ! UV ￿￿ Coronach 350 ! UV Gretna 106°0'0"W 105°0'0"W 104°0'0"W 103°0'0"W 102°0'0"W U.S.A.

P:\GIS_Proj2\10K\10400_to_10499\10427\MAP_FILES\ESA\Rev3\Section5\L3RP_Fig5_1_15_2_Section5_SK_Social_R3_14_08_2014.mxd Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6 101°0'0"W 100°0'0"W 99°0'0"W 98°0'0"W 97°0'0"W

r Riding Mountain e Arborg v Ebb And i National Park R Flow Lake 68 e UV r h c ¯ O Russell November 2014

FIGURE 5.1.15-3 Clear Lake Lake r Winnipeg SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AREA Rossburn e BOUNDARIES iv 50 R 19 UV MANITOBA UV 17 a UV

s

45 o ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. UV d North Winnipeg LINE 3 REPLACEMENT e Lake n Shoal PROGRAM n Beach UV16 i Erickson Jackfish Manitoba Lake Shoal M Lake UV7 10427 6 West 8 Birtle Lake UV East UV Shoal (! 42 10 Shoal Netley Existing Terminal/Station UV UV Lake Teulon Lake Lake Lake .! Station Kilometre Post 308 UV41 Francis 9 UV UV Line 3 Replacement Pipeline Route

Existing Line 3 Pipeline Minnedosa it r Neepawa h em e W Dog Lake 83 v u 892 r O i UV Highway UV e Gladstone d v Hamiota a R Selkirk

A i k R n i R R a v Road B ow er Stonewall r i w r 24 v e 67 O UV h Rapid UV A e c 9A Railway r t T UV a I k City 44 s UV Watercourse a N S Portage La UV26 A e l Rivers Assi Waterbody t 25 ni

50°0'0"N t b 21 i UV Prairie 50°0'0"N

M o 101 UV L UV ine City/Town/Village R SASKATCHEWAN 90 iv UV e Indian Reserve Virden Sioux Valley Carberry r Winnipeg 115 UV15 Dakota S UV UV48 100 e Military Nation L UV i 1A n 1 Brandon a UV UV 110 e Municipal Boundary Oak Lake UV 5 Sa 155 River (! UV lle UV SKP 1000 Bigelows R Park/Protected Area .! i Cromer Slough er ve iv 13 r OAK LAKE Plum CFB Shilo R UV Socio-Economic Local Study Area s yne o R 59 Lake es B (! r i Socio-Economic Regional Study Area Oak Lake p v y Treherne e Niverville West Souris Wawanesa C r Maple SCALE: 1:1,000,000 Souris SKP 1100 2 M Lake .! Glenboro UV o km r 0 10 20 40

r 52 (! r i e UV 22 34 Carman UV s v (All Locations Approximate) Hartney UV R i Glenboro i v R 59 e UV r h 75 s

UV r

a UV361 R Pelican 23 Morris M UV a Lake Swan Lake t (! R Whitewater I.R. No. 7 i UTM Zone 14N 18 v Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants 2008; Railways, Roads: Melita Lake UV Swan St. Leon er USNIMA 2000; Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004; City/Town, Municipal SKP 1200 Boundaries: MCPS 2007; Parks/Protected Areas: MDC 2011; Indian iver Lake R Rock Manitou .! Plum Reserve: Government of Canada 2014; Military Reserves: IHS Inc. Boissevain in a Pilot b Lake R r Deloraine e m os ve P Mound Winkler Coulee e i Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with a R 3 14 u the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data UV are advised that errors in the data may be present. UV r R o L e e S u o ng Ri v Morden d r Altona i s 3A R Mapped By: TM Checked By: LA R UV i

v i 31 e

v UV 32 30 r

e UV UV r (!Gretna Emerson 49°0'0"N Gretna 49°0'0"N

AB MB CANADA / US BORDER SK

! Edmonton

Saskatoon !

Regina ! Winnipeg !

! Gretna 101°0'0"W 100°0'0"W 99°0'0"W 98°0'0"W 97°0'0"W U.S.A.

P:\GIS_Proj2\10K\10400_to_10499\10427\MAP_FILES\ESA\Rev3\Section5\L3RP_Fig5_1_15_3_Section5_MB_Social_R3_14_08_2014.mxd Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Demographic data from Statistics Canada for non-Aboriginal communities in the Socio-Economic LSA and RSA are outlined by province below. Statistics Canada rounds some data to zero or five. When such rounded and imprecise data are converted to percentages, the totals of these percentages sometimes do not sum to 100%. This is most obvious in relation to the sex ratio of the total population, which often does not sum to 100%.

Alberta In Alberta, the replacement pipeline route crosses one MD, the MD of Provost No. 52, from SKP 184.5 to SKP 285.0. No cities, towns, villages or other communities are crossed by the replacement pipeline route in Alberta. In addition to the MD of Provost No. 52, there are three towns and two Métis regions located in the Socio-Economic LSA and RSA.

The communities along the replacement pipeline in Alberta are smaller towns and villages, and the surrounding land use is mostly agricultural. Generally, the economy of the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Alberta is focused on agriculture as well as oil and gas industries. Most communities provide local amenities such as grocers, hospitals, health centres and recreation facilities. Communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA host various events throughout the year, such as the Town of Hardisty’s annual rodeo, however, no issues were identified in relation to the Project (Larson, Lawrason, Miller pers. comm.).

The MD of Provost No. 52 has the largest population in the Alberta Socio-Economic LSA and RSA. In 2011, the total population of the MD of Provost was 2,288, a 10.2% decrease from 2006. In 2011, approximately 67.5% of the population was between the ages of 15 and 64 years old, and the median age was 36.5 (Statistics Canada 2012). There are two Métis regions in the Socio-Economic RSA in Alberta that are crossed by the replacement pipeline route, however, no Aboriginal groups are crossed. For detailed community profiles, refer to Appendix 11.

Table 5.1.15-1 provides select population characteristics for communities in the Alberta Socio-economic LSA and RSA. Census information from Statistics Canada is not available for the Métis Nation of Alberta Regions II and III, which are located in the Socio-economic RSA.

TABLE 5.1.15-1

SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR NON-ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES IN THE ALBERTA SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

years

years

to 14 Location 2006 Population 2006 Population 2011 Percent Change 2006 to 2011 % Identified Aboriginal Percent Population 0 Percent Population 15 64 to Age Median Male Percent Female Percent Alberta 3,290,350 3,645,257 10.8 6.2 18.8 70.1 36.5 50.1 49.9 Town of Sedgewick 891 857 -3.8 N/A 17.4 61.0 43.7 49.4 50.6 Town of Hardisty 760 639 -15.9 N/A 18.8 62.5 41.6 50.0 50.0 MD of Provost No. 52 2,547 2,288 -10.2 N/A 18.8 67.2 42.0 53.0 46.9 Town of Provost 2,072 2,041 -1.5 N/A 23.8 61.5 34.4 49.8 50.2 Source: Statistics Canada 2012 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available. Data for this area has been suppressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons.

Saskatchewan The Saskatchewan Socio-economic LSA and RSA is comprised of 55 non-Aboriginal communities and 18 Aboriginal groups. The largest Saskatchewan community in proximity to the replacement pipeline route is the City of Regina, with a population of 193,100. The largest Aboriginal groups is White Bear First Nation (White Bear IR No. 70, Pheasant Rump IR No. 68 and Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), with a population of 808.

Page 5-216

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

In Saskatchewan, the replacement pipeline route crosses 28 RMs. The towns of Kerrobert and Kipling as well as the villages of Dodsland, Vibank, Montmartre, Fairlight and Maryfield are also crossed by the replacement pipeline route. The Town of Kerrobert is crossed from approximately SKP 352.9 to SKP 353.7 and the Town of Kipling is crossed from approximately SKP 870.2 to SKP 870.3.

In total, there are 28 RMs, 2 cities, 10 towns, 13 villages and 21 Aboriginal groups in the Socio-Economic LSA and RSA. Most of the area around the replacement pipeline route is rural and agricultural in nature. Most of the communities in the Socio-Economic LSA are small towns or villages, with the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina being the largest urban centres along the replacement pipeline route. Generally, the economy of the Socio-economic LSA and RSA is focused on agriculture as well as oil and gas industries. Most communities provide local amenities such as grocers, hospitals, health centres and recreation facilities. Communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA host various events throughout the year, such as the World Bunnock Championships in the Town of Macklin, however, no issues were identified in relation to the Project (Gartner, Mario pers. comm.).

The City of Regina has the largest population in the Saskatchewan Socio-economic LSA and RSA. In 2011, the total population of the City of Regina was 193,100 after a 7.7% growth from 2006. The workforce population, defined as those of ages 15 to 64 years, constituted approximately 69.2% of the total population, and the median age in the City of Regina was 37.1 years in 2011. There are 21 Aboriginal groups in the Socio-Economic LSA and RSA in Saskatchewan, however, no Aboriginal groups are crossed by the replacement pipeline route. Detailed community profiles are provided in Appendix 11.

Table 5.1.15-2 provides select population characteristics for communities in the Saskatchewan Socio-economic LSA and RSA.

TABLE 5.1.15-2

SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR NON-ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES IN THE SASKATCHEWAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

years years

Location 2006 Population 2006 Population 2011 Percent Change 2006 to 2011 % Identified Aboriginal Percent Population 0 14 to Percent Population 15 64 to Age Median Male Percent Female Percent Saskatchewan 968,157 1,033,381 6.7 15.6 19.1 66 38.2 49.5 50.5 RM of Eye Hill No. 382 650 614 -5.5 N/A 22.1 69.1 37.6 52.8 46.3 Town of Macklin 1,290 1,415 9.7 N/A 23 61.5 31.9 51.2 49.1 RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 285 260 -8.8 0.0 22.3 61.5 43.5 50.0 50.0 RM of Progress No. 351 289 260 -10 N/A 15.8 67.3 47.8 53.8 46.2 Town of Kerrobert 1,001 1,061 6.0 N/A 18.5 61.3 42.2 49.5 50.5 RM of Mariposa No. 350 225 220 -2.2 N/A 20.0 68.2 49.1 59.1 43.2 RM of Oakdale No. 320 290 258 -11 N/A 16.3 65.4 45.1 50.0 50.0 RM of Winslow No. 319 296 324 9.5 N/A 24.1 58.5 39.5 53.8 46.2 Village of Dodsland 207 212 2.4 0.0 18.4 59.5 34.2 52.4 47.6 RM of Mountain View 363 333 -8.3 N/A 18.2 66.7 42.9 50.0 51.5 No. 318 RM of Marriott No. 317 410 372 -9.3 N/A 28.9 73.0 46.9 51.4 48.6 RM of St. Andrews No. 287 582 532 -8.6 N/A 20.5 66.0 42.7 53.8 47.2 Town of Rosetown 2,277 2,317 1.8 N/A 15.4 59.0 48.3 47.7 52.3 RM of Milden No. 286 215 283 31.6 N/A 16.9 64.9 46.7 49.1 50.9 Village of Milden 172 181 5.2 N/A 12.2 52.8 57.1 50.0 52.8 RM of Fertile Valley 609 511 -16.1 N/A 26.8 55.9 39.9 52.0 48.0 No. 285

Page 5-217

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.15-2 Cont'd

years years

Location 64 2006 Population 2006 Population 2011 Percent Change 2006 to 2011 % Identified Aboriginal Percent Population 0 14 to Percent Population 15 to Age Median Male Percent Female Percent Town of Outlook 1,938 2,204 13.7 N/A 19.4 54.8 46.4 46.6 53.6 RM of Loreburn No. 254 350 346 -1.1 N/A 15.6 61.4 46.8 50.0 48.6 Village of Loreburn 113 107 -5.3 N/A 13.6 63.6 46.5 50.0 45.4 Village of Elbow 294 314 6.8 N/A 9.1 61.9 56.4 49.2 50.8 RM of Wilner No. 253 254 245 -3.5 N/A 14.3 75.5 47.1 53.1 44.9 RM of Huron No. 223 233 196 -15.9 N/A 19.4 69.2 48.0 51.3 48.7 RM of Craik No. 222 288 299 3.8 N/A 14.7 71.7 49.6 51.7 46.7 Town of Davidson 958 1,025 7.0 N/A 16.4 56.6 47.4 46.8 52.7 Town of Craik 408 453 11.0 N/A 17.4 57.8 49.1 48.9 51.1 RM of Dufferin No. 190 540 512 -5.2 N/A 17.2 72.5 45.6 51.0 49.0 City of Moose Jaw 32,132 33,274 3.6 4.3 16.9 64.2 41.9 48.2 51.8 Village of Bethune 369 400 8.4 N/A 23.8 65.0 37.3 48.8 51.3 RM of Pense No. 160 490 471 -3.9 N/A 20.0 66.0 40.3 52.1 48.9 Town of Lumsden 1,523 1,631 7.1 N/A 18.3 66.3 42.4 50.9 49.1 RM of Sherwood No. 159 1039 929 -10.6 N/A 9.7 78.0 43.3 60.0 40.0 Village of Grand Coulee 435 571 31.3 N/A 27.0 67.8 31.6 49.6 49.6 City of Regina 179,282 193,100 7.7 9.9 17.4 69.2 37.1 48.7 51.3 RM of Edenwold No. 158 3,606 4,167 15.6 N/A 22.3 68.7 39.0 50.3 49.8 RM of South Qu’Appelle 1,066 1,271 19.2 N/A 20.0 65.9 43.6 53.3 46.3 No. 157 Town of White City 1,113 1,894 70.2 N/A 25.6 69.7 34.3 51.5 48.3 Town of Balgonie 1,384 1,625 17.4 N/A 25.5 67.4 33.3 51.1 49.2 RM of Lajord No. 128 977 993 1.6 N/A 21.7 70.9 38.2 54.3 45.7 RM of Francis No. 127 672 676 0.6 N/A 22.9 67.4 40.4 53.3 46.7 Village of Vibank 361 374 3.6 N/A 20.0 65.3 41.1 48.0 50.7 Village of Odessa 201 239 18.9 N/A 20.9 64.6 35.7 52.1 47.9 RM of Montmartre No. 126 503 488 -3.0 N/A 24.0 61.2 41.3 54.1 45.9 Village of Kendal 59 77 30.5 N/A 25.0 68.8 34.5 56.3 43.8 Village of Montmartre 413 476 15.3 N/A 17.0 52.1 50.2 46.9 52.1 RM of Chester No. 125 386 373 -3.4 N/A 19.8 63.5 48.1 51.4 48.6 Village of Glenavon 183 176 -3.8 N/A 11.4 60.0 50.8 51.4 45.7 RM of Kingsley No. 124 439 421 -4.1 N/A 17.6 69.0 46.8 52.4 47.6 Town of Kipling 973 1,051 8.0 N/A 19.1 54.8 42.4 49.0 51.0 RM of Silverwood No. 123 449 466 3.8 N/A 21.7 65.6 41.9 52.7 47.3 RM of Wawken No. 93 608 559 -8.1 N/A 13.5 67.9 50.8 52.7 46.4 RM of Walpole No. 92 348 338 -2.9 N/A 19.5 70.6 42.5 52.9 47.1 Town of Moosomin 2,262 2,485 9.9 N/A 17.9 60.6 41.2 48.5 51.5 Village of Fairlight 40 40 0 N/A 17.9 75.0 46.2 50.0 50.0 RM of Maryfield No. 91 341 319 -6.5 N/A 19.7 67.2 45.3 48.4 50.0 Village of Maryfield 347 365 5.2 N/A 19.2 54.1 45.2 50.0 50.0 Source: Statistics Canada 2012 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available. Data for this area has been suppressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons.

Page 5-218

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.15-3

SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR ABORIGINAL GROUPS IN THE SASKATCHEWAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

years

years

Location 2006 Population 2006 Population 2011 Percent Change 2011 to 2006 Percent Population 14 0 to Percent Population 15 64 to Age Median Male Percent Female Percent Piapot First Nation 448 474 5.8 34.4 60.2 23.5 51.6 48.4 Muscowpetung First Nation 290 375 29.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Carry the Kettle First Nation 671 683 1.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sakimay First Nation 226 492 117.7 14.8 59.3 57.0 55.6 44.4 Cowessess First Nation 513 682 32.9 37.3 56.0 24.1 50.0 50.7 Ochapowace First Nation 448 555 23.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A White Bear First Nation 811 808 -0.4 29.6 65.4 24.2 52.8 47.2 The Métis Nation - SK Western Region IIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The Métis Nation - SK Western Region III N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A The Métis Nation - SK Eastern Region III N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: Statistics Canada 2012 Notes: - N/A indicates that no desktop information was available. Data for this area has been suppressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons. - Piapot First Nation includes population information for Piapot IR No. 75, Piapot Cree IR No. 75H, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77. - Muscowpetung First Nation includes population information for Muscowpetung IR No. 80, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77. - Carry the Kettle First Nation includes population information for Assiniboine IR No. 76, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77. - Sakimay First Nation includes population information for Sakimay IR No. 74, Little Bone IR No. 74B, Shesheep IR No. 74A, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77. - Cowessess First Nation includes population information for Cowessess IR No. 73, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77. - Ochapowace First Nation includes population information for Ochapowace IR No. 71, Ochapowace IR No. 71-7, Ochapowace IR No. 71-54, Ochapowace IR No. 71-51, Ochapowace IR No. 71-44, Ochapowace IR No. 71-18, Ochapowace IR No. 71-70, Ochapowace IR No. 71-10, Ochapowace IR No. 71-26, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77. - White Bear First Nation includes population information for White Bear IR No. 70, Pheasant Rump IR No. 68, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77).

Manitoba The Manitoba Socio-economic LSA and RSA is comprised of 22 non-Aboriginal communities and 5 Aboriginal groups. The largest Manitoba community in proximity to the replacement pipeline route is the City of Brandon, with a population of 46,061. The largest Aboriginal group is Sioux Valley Dakota Nation (2013), with a population of 1,147.

In Manitoba, the replacement pipeline route crosses 12 RMs. No cities, towns, villages or other non-Aboriginal communities are crossed by the replacement pipeline route.

In total, there are 12 RMs, 3 cities, 5 towns, 2 villages and 5 Aboriginal groups in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA. Most of the communities in the Socio-economic LSA in Manitoba are smaller towns and villages, and the surrounding areas are mostly agricultural. Generally, the economy of the Socio- economic LSA and RSA is focused on agriculture as well as oil and gas industries. Most communities provide local amenities such as grocers, hospitals, health centres, and recreation facilities. Communities in the Socio-economic RSA host various events throughout the year, however, no issues were identified in relation to the Project (Epp, Trudel pers. comm.).

The cities of Brandon, Morden and Winkler are the largest urban centres in the Socio-economic LSA in Manitoba. Most of the replacement pipeline route crosses agricultural areas with small, rural towns and villages where agriculture is the primary industry. The City of Brandon experienced a growth in population of 11.0% between 2006 (41,511) and 2011, when the population totalled 46,061 (Statistics Canada 2012). The median age was 35.6 years and the workforce population (defined as those from

Page 5-219

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

ages 15 to 64 years) constituted approximately 67.7% of the population. There are eight Aboriginal groups in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Manitoba, one of which is crossed by the replacement pipeline route (i.e., Swan Lake First Nation IR No. 7). For detailed community profiles, refer to Appendix 11.

TABLE 5.1.15-4

SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR NON-ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES IN THE MANITOBA SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

years

years Population

Location 2006 2006 Population 2011 Percent Change 2006 to 2011 % Identified Aboriginal 0 Population Percent 14 to Percent Population 15 64 to Age Median Male Percent Female Percent Manitoba 1,148,401 1,208,268 5.2 16.7 19.1 66.6 38.4 49.2 50.8 RM of Wallace 1,501 1,526 1.7 N/A 21.6 64.9 39.6 50.5 49.5 RM of Pipestone 1,419 1,447 2.0 N/A 17.0 63.0 45.2 51.2 48.8 Town of Virden 3,010 3,114 3.5 N/A 16.9 59.9 42.7 47.0 53.0 RM of Sifton 796 789 -0.9 N/A 17.2 64.3 45.9 50.3 50.3 RM of Glenwood 640 602 -5.9 N/A 25.1 67.5 35.4 49.2 51.7 Town of Souris 1,772 1,837 3.7 N/A 16.6 57.2 46.8 46.9 53.4 RM of Oakland 1,033 1,056 2.2 N/A 17.8 68.2 43.8 50.2 49.3 City of Brandon 41,511 46,061 11.0 11.2 18.3 67.7 35.6 48.1 51.9 Village of Wawanesa 535 568 5.0 N/A 19.5 56.6 40.9 47.8 52.2 RM of South Cypress 834 838 0.5 N/A 25.9 64.3 34.5 51.8 48.2 Village of Glenboro 633 645 1.9 N/A 15.5 60.5 50.1 48.8 51.9 RM of Argyle 1,073 1,071 -0.2 N/A 17.8 63.6 45.4 50.5 49.5 RM of Lorne 2,003 1,884 -5.9 N/A 21.3 62.9 41.2 51.5 48.8 RM of Pembina 1,712 1,561 -8.8 N/A 21.9 64.1 39.7 52.2 47.4 Town of Manitou 718 808 12.2 N/A 16.7 54.3 48.2 45.1 54.3 RM of Thompson 1,259 1,397 11.0 N/A 21.0 65.4 36.0 49.3 50.7 RM of Stanley 6,367 8,356 31.2 N/A 35.5 60.6 21.6 51.2 48.9 City of Morden 6,571 7,812 18.9 4.0 20.0 62.4 37.9 48.3 51.7 City of Winkler 9,106 10,670 17.2 2.5 22.7 62.3 33.6 48.9 51.2 RM of Rhineland 4,373 4,125 -6.0 N/A 32.8 62.0 24.9 52.2 47.8 Town of Gretna 574 556 -3.1 N/A 28.8 64.0 28.4 49.5 50.5 Town of Altona 3,709 4,088 10.2 N/A 19.8 60.5 39.2 48.2 51.9 Source: Statistics Canada 2013 Notes: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available. Data for this area has been suppressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons.

TABLE 5.1.15-5

SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR ABORIGINAL GROUPS IN THE MANITOBA SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS n n

years

years

Location 2006 Population 2006 Population 2011 Percent Change 2011 to 2006 Percent Population 14 0 to Percent Populatio 15 64 to Age Median Male Percent Female Percent Swan Lake First Nation (Swan Lake IR No. 7) 347 371 6.9 31.1 63.5 24.9 44.6 55.4 Sioux Valley Dakota Nation (Sioux Valley 1,079 1,147 6.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dakota Nation) Canupawakpa Dakota Nation (Canupawakpa 295 288 -2.4 26.3 68.4 32.4 49.1 50.9 Dakota First Nation (Oak Lake No. 59)

Page 5-220

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.15-5 Cont'd

years

years

Location 2006 Population 2006 Population 2011 Percent Change 2011 to 2006 Percent Population 14 0 to Percent Population 15 64 to Age Median Male Percent Female Percent Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. - Southeast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Regional Métis Corporation Manitoba Métis Federation Southwest Region N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Inc. Source: Statistics Canada 2012 Note: - N/A indicates that no desktop information was available. Data for this area has been suppressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons.

5.1.16 Human Health A detailed discussion regarding the existing condition of human health is provided in Appendix 11. The potential effects related to the replacement pipeline and key mitigation pertaining to human health are discussed in Section 6.2.16 and full mitigation measures are provided in the Pipeline EPP in Appendix 1A.

Human health is defined as

“..a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and the ability to adapt to the stresses of daily life; it is not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” (NEB 2014a, World Health Organization 1946).

This interpretation of human health recognizes the interrelationships between the social, biophysical, economic and cultural environments. These interrelationships change depending upon the nature of the Project and its location.

The spatial boundaries related to human health are described under the HORU spatial boundaries, defined in Section 5.1.12 and provided in Figures 5.1.12-1 to 5.1.12-3.

The environmental elements associated with the replacement pipeline that may be related to human health include: the physical and meteorological environment; soil and soil productivity; water quality and quantity; air and GHG emissions; the acoustic environment; fish and fish habitat; wildlife and wildlife habitat; and accidents and malfunctions. The pathways of human reception to changes in these environmental elements are described further in Appendix 11. Socio-economic elements that may be related to human health include, TLRU, social and cultural well-being, infrastructure and services, and navigation and navigation safety. For more information on these elements, refer to the respective sections of the ESA or Appendix 11.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues or concerns specifically related to human health were identified. Some municipal representatives (e.g., from the RMs of Progress No. 351, Lajord No. 128 and South Cypress, the Town of Kipling and the Village of Glenboro) raised concern regarding sensory disturbance in the HORU LSA and RSA, which is discussed in Section 5.6.5.

5.1.17 Infrastructure and Services This subsection summarizes general patterns and potential interactions of the Project in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA (Figures 5.1.15-1 to 5.1.15-3). A detailed discussion regarding the existing condition of infrastructure and services is provided in Appendix 11. The potential Project-related effects and key mitigation pertaining to infrastructure and services are discussed in Section 6.2.17.

The spatial boundaries of the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are defined in Section 5.1.15 and are presented in Figures 5.1.15-1 to 5.1.15-3.

Page 5-221

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.1.17.1 Transportation Infrastructure This subsection describes transportation infrastructure and services in the Footprint and the Socio-economic LSA and RSA that may be disrupted or interrupted during the construction or operations of the replacement pipeline. This includes roads, rail transportation and airports. For more information on potential road and transportation infrastructure interruptions, refer to Appendix 11.

A Project-specific Traffic Accommodation Strategy (TAS) will be developed to provide guidance to the construction contractors and the construction management team for accommodating public traffic at roadway crossing locations. Enbridge will work closely with provincial and regional authorities and regulators to determine appropriate traffic control measures and devises necessary at road crossing locations to ensure everything is being done to prevent incident. An Environmental Traffic Control Plan (ETCP) is provided in the Pipeline EPP (Appendix 1A). The ETCP outlines traffic control strategies for contractors and construction workers who will be operating vehicles on-site and for other Project-related activity.

Frequency, timing and duration of traffic interruptions that could arise during construction of the replacement pipeline are difficult to determine at this time. Primary and secondary provincial highways as well as tertiary and private roads will be used for access during construction activities. No road closures are anticipated, however, traffic may be temporarily delayed while equipment is moved across roadways. All developed road crossings will be bored and will be crossed during the construction season without interruption to traffic (in both summer and winter). Temporary shoo-flies will be developed during construction of the replacement pipeline.

At locations where existing linear infrastructure will be crossed (e.g., pipelines, transmission lines), crossing agreements will be negotiated with the disposition holders and appropriate arrangements made for access. These agreements will be negotiated closer to the planned start of construction. There are a total of 29 primary highways and 44 secondary highways crossed by the replacement pipeline route and some of these highways are crossed more than once.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, the following issues and concerns regarding transportation infrastructure have been identified:

• Concerns were expressed that Project-related activities could result in an increase of industrial traffic volumes on the roads and highways resulting in added disruption of normal highway traffic patterns. Temporary increases of industrial traffic could also interfere with the patterns of local industrial traffic. Concerns regarding heavy equipment traffic traveling through inappropriate routes, such as through towns and villages in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA have also been raised (Audette, Brenner, Epp, Heise, Jess, Meadows, Nieman, Olynyk, Piermantier, Plaetinck, Priestly, Saville, Wolfe pers. comm.).

• Project-related industrial traffic and the transportation of heavy equipment as well as the impact of direct construction activity can contribute to, or cause, degradation or damage to existing roadways. Concerns regarding the accountability of Enbridge for the physical damage to roadways, as a result of Project traffic and construction activities has been expressed (Applin, Brenner, Deobald, Goodsman, Heise, Heisler, Greig, Kay, Lawrason, Michelman, Nieman, Pilat, Toews, Wolfe, Young pers. comm.).

• Concern was expressed that traffic on gravel roads creates dust. Dust can be disruptive to the health and the comfort of residents and land users in the area around the replacement pipeline route. Consideration for alternatives to water for dust control, such as magnesium chloride, has been emphasized by municipal representatives (Heise, Kay, Meadows, Plaetinck pers. comm.). Concern was also raised that noise from traffic and heavy machinery would be disruptive, especially in the early mornings (Dakue, Plaetinck pers. comm.).

Roads Most transportation between the construction worker accommodations and the work site is expected to be by a combination of buses, crew vans and trucks or personal vehicles. Road use agreements between

Page 5-222

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Enbridge and road permit owners will be obtained prior to the commencement of construction in the area for the use of resources or private roads.

There is a well-developed road system servicing the lands in the vicinity of the replacement pipeline route given the level of settlement in the area and the presence of existing pipelines. Pipe and equipment will be transported using accessible highways and range roads in the vicinity of the replacement pipeline route. The number and type of road crossings associated with the Project are provided in Table 5.1.17-1.

TABLE 5.1.17-1

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE CROSSED BY THE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PIPELINE ROUTE

Type Total Alberta Primary Highways 3 Secondary Highways 4 Tertiary Local Roads 44 Private Roads 8 Saskatchewan Primary Highways 27 Secondary Highways 23 Tertiary Local Roads 290 Other – Private Roads 10 Other – Public Roads 44 Manitoba Primary Highways 12 Secondary Highways 17 Tertiary Local Roads 127 Private Tertiary Roads 2 Other – Private Roads 8 Source: IHS Inc. 2013d

Alberta For the sections of the replacement pipeline route east of the Town of Hardisty to the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, Highway 13 provides access to both highway crossings. Automated traffic recorder (ATR) information provided below is from an ATR near the junction of Highways 13 and 42 near the Village of Czar, in proximity to the highway crossing at SKP 218.4. The ATR was at a location most likely to be used by Project workers relative to other ATR locations along Highway 13. The traffic volumes for these sites increased by 11.3% from 2010 to 2011, by 4.7% from 2011 to 2012 and decreased by 0.3% from 2012 to 2013 (Government of Alberta 2012, 2013c, 2014c). Appendix 11 provides Monthly Average Daily Traffic (MADT) volumes and Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for this ATR location. AADT was recorded at 1,395 in 2013 (Government of Alberta 2014c). Highway 13 is crossed by the replacement pipeline route at SKP 206.1 and SKP 218.4. For more information on AADT volumes for these ATR locations, refer to Appendix 11.

Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, the replacement pipeline route loosely parallels Highways 31 and 48. Highways 1 (Trans-Canada Highway), 7, 11, 15 and 19 are the main transportation routes in the Socio-economic RSA in Saskatchewan. The replacement pipeline route crosses Highway 7 at SKP 449.0, Highway 15 at SKP 476.8 and Highway 19 at SKP 551.1. The highest traffic volumes are found along Highway 7 near the Town of Rosetown, and Highway 1 near the City of Regina (Government of Saskatchewan 2012). Highway 1 is not crossed by the replacement pipeline route. MADT values are not available through desktop research for Saskatchewan. For more information on AADT for these ATR locations, refer to Section 3.3.4.1 in Appendix 11.

Page 5-223

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Manitoba The highest traffic volumes within the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are found along Highways 2, 5, and 3 near the Village of Wawanesa, the Village of Glenboro and the cities of Morden and Winkler, respectively (Paopst 2012). For more information on AADT volumes for these ATR locations, refer to Appendix 11. MADT values are not available through desktop research for Manitoba.

Rail Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) are two of the largest rail operators with rail lines crossed by the replacement pipeline route.

Along the replacement pipeline route there are rail stations and intermodal hubs that may be accessible for the use of rail for transporting passengers or equipment to work sites. The primary intermodal hubs are located in the cities of Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg (CN 2014, CPR 2014). For more information on rail lines in the Footprint and the Socio-economic LSA and RSA, refer to Appendix 11.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues or concerns were identified regarding rail lines in the Footprint or the Socio-economic LSA and RSA.

The replacement pipeline route crosses two rail lines in Alberta. They are described as federal railways, owned and operated by CN. In Saskatchewan, the replacement pipeline route crosses 17 rail lines. The replacement pipeline route crosses nine rail lines in Manitoba. They are also described as federal railways and are owned and operated by CN and CPR.

Airports Air transportation may be used to transport workers and goods for Project-related activities. A range of airfields and facilities are available in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in all three provinces. Appendix 11 provides a summary of the airfields and airports in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues or concerns were identified regarding the use of airports in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA.

Alberta In Alberta, Hardisty Airport and Provost Airport as well as six unnamed airfields were identified in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA that may be used for transporting passengers or cargo to and from work sites. Information about the airport facilities in the Socio-economic RSA is provided in Table 3.1-39 of Appendix 11.

Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the Regina Airport and eight additional airfields were identified in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA that may be used for transporting passengers or cargo to and from work sites. Information about the airport facilities in the Socio-economic RSA is provided in Appendix 11.

Manitoba In Manitoba, Souris Glenwood Airport, Morden Regional Airport, Manitou Airport CKG5, Somerset Airfield, Glenboro Regional Airport, Winkler Airfield, Altona Municipal Airfield and Haskett Airfield as well as 11 unnamed airfields were identified in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA that may be used for transporting passengers or cargo to and from work sites. Information about the airport facilities in the Socio-economic RSA is provided in Appendix 11.

5.1.17.2 Linear Infrastructure and Power Supply The replacement pipeline route was chosen to parallel/overlap the ACEP right-of-way for approximately 93.3% of its length and only deviates from this route for approximately 6.7%. Where feasible, the replacement pipeline route also follows existing linear disturbances, including existing Enbridge pipelines, for a total of 94.2% of its length. These linear disturbances include transmission lines, power supply infrastructure, and other existing pipeline rights-of-way. The replacement pipeline route crosses a total of

Page 5-224

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

55 pipelines in Alberta (77 total crossings), 107 pipelines in Saskatchewan (319 total crossings) and 26 pipelines in Manitoba (57 total crossings).

Alberta Energy, SaskPower and Manitoba Hydro are the main power supply service providers in each of their respective provinces. The replacement pipeline route crosses 35 transmission line rights-of-way a total of 43 times (Appendix 11).

During socio-economic technical discussion and broader Project engagement, the following issue or concern was identified.

• Concern over disturbance to linear infrastructure was expressed by some municipalities along the replacement pipeline route (Frazer pers. comm.).

No additional concerns regarding capacity of the power supply have been identified. For additional information on linear infrastructure and power supply, refer to Appendix 11.

5.1.17.3 Emergency and Protective Services Emergency services include policing, fire protection and ambulatory services. Health care services are provided by hospitals, health centres or medical clinics. For more information on emergency and protective services refer to Appendix 11.

Enbridge will coordinate with first responders in the vicinity of the replacement pipeline route. Engagement with emergency services will establish expected response times. Enbridge’s Emergency Responder Education program provides free training to emergency responders in the municipalities in proximity to the replacement pipeline route (Enbridge 2014b). Integrated response plans and open communication brings Enbridge emergency response and local emergency responders together to respond effectively to any emergencies (Enbridge 2014b). Emergency Medical Technicians contracted through Enbridge will be on-site during the construction of the replacement pipeline.

Emergency services and medical care will be available to personnel on-site during construction of the replacement pipeline. Transportation to regional and community health care facilities will be available through ground and/or air transportation.

In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, local police departments, protective service officers and RCMP detachments provide police and protective services to the urban and rural areas in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA. Police and protective services include, but are not limited to, patrolling, enforcing bylaws and emergency response.

Fire protection services in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided by local and regional volunteer and career fire departments. While incidents during pipeline construction are rare, planning for such incidents is important and requires coordination with local and regional fire protection services. These fire departments provide services such as fire suppression, fire prevention, hazardous waste materials handling, rescue services and responding to emergency medical calls.

Ambulance services are often provided by provincial or regional health authorities, boards or hospitals. Enbridge is committed to constructing the replacement pipeline in a safe and responsible manner according to provincial work safety regulations and Enbridge’s own Health and Safety Policy.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, the follow issues or concerns regarding emergency services were identified:

• Concern was expressed about the provision of emergency and health care services in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA. Increased pressure on police departments, RCMP and fire departments, ambulatory services and health care providers, including hospitals, can cause capacity issues that may limit the availability of these services, affecting both residents and temporary workers, if these services are necessary. Some communities (e.g., Town of Kerrobert, Village of Bethune and the RM of Mountain View No. 318) expressed concern that they already have shortages of personnel or infrastructure (Applin, Audette, Deobald, Edom, Gaultier, Gintaut, Greggor, Heise, J. Jones, Kay, Macksymchuk, Macomber, N. Stronski, Saville, Toews, Yates, Young pers. comm.).

Page 5-225

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Police and Protective Services - Alberta In Alberta, two Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachments service the communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA. Details of the RCMP detachments that service the municipalities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5.1.17-2.

TABLE 5.1.17-2

POLICE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN ALBERTA

Municipality Services Provided By Notes Town of Sedgewick • Killam RCMP • RCMP located 10km west in the Town of Killam serve the Town of Sedgewick. Town of Hardisty • Service area includes the surrounding rural roads. • No capacity issues are anticipated by the Project construction start. MD of Provost No. 52 • Provost RCMP • No capacity issues regarding this service are anticipated. • Killam RCMP • The MD employs its own full-time peace officer who serves the entire area. Town of Provost • Service area includes the surrounding rural roads. • According to municipal representatives, there are occasional staff shortages regarding police services, however, it is not anticipated to be an issue during Project construction. Sources: Davis, Duffett, Larson, Lawrason, Miller pers. comm., RCMP 2014, Town of Hardisty 2013, Town of Sedgewick 2013.

Police and Protective Services - Saskatchewan Municipal police services (RM of Progress No. 351 Municipal Police, City of Moose Jaw Police Service and Regina Police Service) and 21 RCMP detachments service the communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Saskatchewan. Most communities did not identify any capacity issues in relation to police and protective services. Details of the RCMP detachments that service the municipalities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5.1.17-3. Police services were not identified for the RMs of Mariposa No. 350, Winslow No. 319, Marriott No. 317, St. Andrews No. 287, South Qu’Appelle No. 157 and Huron No. 223.

TABLE 5.1.17-3

POLICE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Eye Hill No. 382 • Town of Unity RCMP • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues with the • Town of Wilkie RCMP police service in RM even though there are no officers permanently assigned to the area. Town of Macklin • Town of Macklin RCMP • There is a community RCMP office in town, however, the main detachment is in the Town of Unity. • No capacity issues are anticipated. RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 • Town of Kerrobert RCMP • N/A RM of Progress No. 351 • RM of Progress No. 351 Municipal • The RM has a municipal police force staffed by one individual. Police • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues • Town of Kindersley RCMP regarding police and protective services. • Town of Kerrobert RCMP Town of Kerrobert • Town of Kerrobert RCMP • Staffed by three constables and one corporal. • The Town of Kerrobert RCMP service a one hour travel radius round the town including the RM of Heart’s Hill and the Village of Dodsland. • A lack of police presence in the town has been identified and municipal representatives have suggested it may be due to staff shortages at the department in the Town of Kindersley. RM of Mariposa No. 350 • N/A • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project. RM of Oakdale No. 320 • Town of Kerrobert RCMP • Capacity issues are not anticipated by municipal representatives. • Town of Kindersley RCMP

Page 5-226

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-3 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Winslow No. 319 • Town of Kerrobert RCMP • Municipal representatives have indicated that no capacity issues are • Town of Kindersley RCMP anticipated. Village of Dodsland • Town of Kerrobert RCMP • Municipal representatives have indicated that no capacity issues are • Town of Kindersley RCMP anticipated. RM of Mountain View • Town of Kerrobert RCMP • Municipal representatives have indicated that there are no issues with No. 318 • Town of Rosetown RCMP response times or detachment staffing. • Town of Biggar RCMP RM of Marriott No. 317 • N/A • N/A RM of St. Andrews • N/A • N/A No. 287 Town of Rosetown • Town of Rosetown RCMP • Staffed by 1 sergeant, 1 corporal, 5 constables, 2 highway patrol constables and 2 public servants. • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues regarding the police service. RM of Milden No. 286 • Town of Outlook RCMP • The RM of Milden No. 286 is fully covered by RCMP and, according to • Town of Rosetown RCMP municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues. • Village of Dinsmore RCMP Village of Milden • Town of Outlook RCMP • Municipal representatives have stated that there are no capacity issues regarding emergency services. RM of Fertile Valley • Town of Outlook RCMP • According to municipal representatives, the RCMP in the Town of Outlook No. 285 serve a very large area, resulting in often long response times. Town of Outlook • Town of Outlook RCMP • Municipal representatives have stated that the RCMP service is currently understaffed by one or two members, however, the service is meeting all of the town’s needs. RM of Loreburn No. 254 • Village of Elbow RCMP • Capacity issues during the summer months have been identified for RCMP services. Village of Loreburn • Town of Outlook RCMP • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues • Village of Elbow RCMP regarding any emergency services. Village of Elbow • Village of Elbow RCMP • There are no service capacity issues anticipated during construction of the Project. RM of Wilner No. 253 • Town of Craik RCMP • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues • Village of Elbow RCMP regarding emergency services. RM of Huron No. 223 • N/A • N/A Town of Davidson • Town of Craik RCMP • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues regarding this service. RM of Craik No. 222 • Town of Craik RCMP • Capacity has been an issue recently while two injured officers recovered. Town of Craik • Town of Craik RCMP • N/A RM of Dufferin No. 190 • Pembina Valley RCMP • The Pembina Valley RCMP headquarters is in Carman, Manitoba. City of Moose Jaw • City of Moose Jaw Police Service • The Moose Jaw Police Service employs 1 chief, 1 deputy chief, 3 inspectors, • City of Moose Jaw RCMP 5 sergeants, 8 corporals and 34 constables. • The City of Moose Jaw RCMP will respond to calls in the surrounding area. • Neither the RCMP nor the Police Service is experiencing capacity issues. Village of Bethune • Town of Lumsden RCMP • Capacity issues due to staffing have been identified for the Town of Lumsden • City of Moose Jaw RCMP RCMP and the City of Moose Jaw RCMP. RM of Pense No. 160 • City of Regina RCMP • Capacity issues have been identified for the City of Moose Jaw RCMP. • City of Moose Jaw RCMP Town of Lumsden • Town of Lumsden RCMP • N/A RM of Sherwood No. 159 • White Butte RCMP • N/A Village of Grand Coulee • White Butte RCMP • There has been no capacity issues related to police services. City of Regina • Regina Police Service • Staffed by 1 chief of police, 1 deputy chief, 2 superintendents, 8 inspectors, 15 staff sergeants, 61 sergeants, 55 corporals, 239 constables, 4 special constables and 143 civilian staff. • There are no capacity issues in relation to police services in the City of Regina. RM of Edenwold No. 158 • White Butte RCMP • The White Butte RCMP does not currently experience capacity issues. RM of South Qu’Appelle • N/A • N/A No. 157 Town of White City • White Butte RCMP • The White Butte RCMP does not currently experience capacity issues.

Page 5-227

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-3 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes Town of Balgonie • White Butte RCMP • The White Butte RCMP does not currently experience capacity issues. RM of Lajord No. 128 • White Butte RCMP • The White Butte RCMP does not currently experience capacity issues. • Town of Milestone RCMP • There are no policing capacity issues in the RM of Lajord No. 128. RM of Francis No. 127 • Village of Montmartre RCMP • The Village of Montmartre RCMP has three full-time RCMP members. • Village of Fillmore RCMP • No capacity issues have been identified for the Village of Montmartre RCMP. • Police capacity is a concern for the RM of Francis No. 127 even though incidence of crime is low in the area. • Municipal representatives are concerned that there is not enough staff to control traffic and speeding. Village of Vibank • Village of Montmartre RCMP • The Village of Montmartre RCMP has three full-time RCMP members. • No capacity issues have been identified. Village of Odessa • Village of Montmartre RCMP • The Village of Montmartre RCMP has three full-time RCMP members. • No capacity issues have been identified. RM of Montmartre No. 126 • The Village of Montmartre RCMP has three full-time RCMP members. • No capacity issues have been identified. Village of Kendal • The Village of Montmartre RCMP has three full-time RCMP members. • No capacity issues have been identified. Village of Montmartre • The Village of Montmartre RCMP has three full-time RCMP members. • No capacity issues have been identified. RM of Chester No. 125 • The Village of Montmartre RCMP has three full-time RCMP members. • No capacity issues have been identified. Village of Glenavon • The Village of Montmartre RCMP has three full-time RCMP members. • No capacity issues have been identified. RM of Kingsley No. 124 • Town of Kipling RCMP • N/A • Town of Broadview RCMP Town of Kipling • Town of Kipling RCMP • Capacity issues are not anticipated by municipal representatives during construction. RM of Silverwood No. 123 • Town of Kipling RCMP • Municipal representative have indicated that there are no capacity issues • Town of Moosomin RCMP regarding police and protective services in the RM. • Town of Broadview RCMP RM of Wawken No. 93 • Town of Moosomin RCMP • There is not an RCMP detachment in the RM of Wawken No. 93. The Town of Moosomin RCMP detachment serves the RM. RM of Walpole No. 92 • Town of Carlyle RCMP • No issues with capacity have been identified. Town of Moosomin • Town of Moosomin RCMP • The town’s RCMP detachment has 6 members who enforce the law in an area ranging from the Hamlet of Burrows in the west, the Manitoba border in the east and approximately 40 km north and south of the Trans Canada Highway, and includes the villages of Maryfield and Fairlight. Village of Fairlight • Town of Moosomin RCMP • According to municipal representatives, there are no anticipated capacity issues regarding police service in the Village of Fairlight. RM of Maryfield No. 91 • Town of Moosomin RCMP • No strain on local emergency services during previous pipeline construction periods has been identified and no future capacity issues are anticipated. • There have not been any issues in the past due to the influx of a large worker population. Village of Maryfield • Town of Moosomin RCMP • Municipal representatives do not anticipate any capacity issues with police and protective services during the replacement pipeline construction period. Sources: Applin, Audette, Berlin, Bohn, Brenner, Deobald, Duck, Edom, Frazer, Gartner, Gintaut, Goodsman, Gould, Hagar, Heise, Heisler, Hoff, Hoffman, Jess, J. Jones, Kemp, M. Stronski, MacDonald, Macksymchuk, Macomber, Maxemniuk, McIvor, Metz, Michelman, Millard, N. Stronski, Nieman, Piermantier, Pilat, Saville, Schaefer, Thorn, Wolfe, Yates pers. comm., Moose Jaw Police Service 2014, RCMP 2014, Regina Police Service 2011, 2013, RM of Pense 2013, Town of Carman 2012, Town of Kerrobert 2013, Town of Lumsden 2007, Town of Macklin 2014, Town of Moosomin 2014, Town of Rosetown 2014, Town of White City 2014, Village of Montmartre 2014, White Butte Regional Planning Committee 2014 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Police and Protective Services - Manitoba In Manitoba, 4 municipal police services (City of Brandon, City of Morden, City of Winkler and Town of Altona Police Services) and 13 RCMP detachments service the communities in the Socio-economic LSA

Page 5-228

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427 and RSA. Most communities did not identify any capacity issues in relation to police and protective services. Details of the RCMP detachments that service the municipalities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5.1.17-4. Police services were not identified for the RMs of Sifton, Glenwood and Rhineland.

TABLE 5.1.17-4

POLICE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN MANITOBA

Municipality Serviced Communities Notes RM of Wallace • Town of Virden RCMP • According to municipal representatives, the Town of Virden RCMP does not experience capacity issues. • STARS Air Ambulance’s closest landing zone is in Broadview, Saskatchewan and those with serious injuries would need to be driven there to be picked up. RM of Pipestone • Village of Reston RCMP • According to municipal representatives, the RCMP detachments are not • Town of Virden RCMP experiencing any capacity issues. • Town of Melita RCMP Town of Virden • Town of Virden RCMP • According to municipal representatives, the Town of Virden RCMP does not experience capacity issues. RM of Sifton • N/A • N/A RM of Glenwood • Town of Souris RCMP • No capacity issues are anticipated. Town of Souris • Town of Souris RCMP • N/A RM of Oakland • Blue Hills RCMP • According to municipal representatives, capacity issues with police and protective services are not anticipated. City of Brandon • City of Brandon Police Service • The Brandon Police Service is structured into Support Units and Sections, which include the Community, Patrol, Operational and Administrative Support Units, and the Crime and Patrol Sections. • According to municipal representatives, there have been no capacity issues in the past and none are anticipated to occur. Village of • RCMP • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues regarding Wawanesa this service. RM of South • Town of Carberry RCMP • Municipal representatives indicated that there are no capacity issues. Cypress Village of Glenboro • Town of Carberry RCMP • Municipal representatives indicated that there are no capacity issues. RM of Argyle • Killarney RCMP • Municipal representatives indicated that there are no capacity issues. RM of Lorne • Village of Crystal City RCMP • The RCMP community office in the Town of Manitou is part of the Pembina • Town of Treherne RCMP Valley RCMP, which also provides police services to the Town of Manitou and • Town of Manitou RCMP the RM of Pembina. • RCMP detachments have been identified as being short staffed, which, according to municipal representatives, is the norm and does not cause any particular problems. RM of Pembina • Town of Manitou RCMP • According to municipal representatives both detachments have ongoing staff • Village of Crystal City RCMP shortage issues. Town of Manitou • Town of Manitou RCMP • Staffed by 1 sergeant, 1 corporal, 6 constables and 2 public service employees. • The Manitou RCMP detachment also includes the Crystal City Satellite RCMP detachment and the Swan Lake First Nation Community Policing Service. • The detachment area covers approximately 1,125 km². • The Town of Manitou RCMP does not have any capacity issues. RM of Thompson • City of Thompson RCMP • Municipal Unit employees include 1 inspector, 1 staff sergeant, 1 sergeant, 4 corporals and 10 municipal employees. • Rural Unit employees include 1 sergeant, 1 corporal, 8 constables and 2 public service employees. • The Municipal Unit is responsible for policing in the City of Thompson, and includes General Duty, Police-Community Relations, Traffic Services and a General Investigative section. • The Rural Unit is responsible for policing the seven outlying communities.

Page 5-229

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-4 Cont'd

Municipality Serviced Communities Notes RM of Thompson • City of Thompson RCMP • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, (cont’d) issues or concerns regarding the Project. RM of Stanley • City of Morden RCMP • 911 emergency services are available in the entire municipality. • No capacity issues have been identified. City of Morden • City of Morden Police Service • There is 1 chief of police, 2 sergeants and 13 constables on staff. • No capacity issues have been identified. • The City of Winkler Police Service offers support the City of Morden Police Service during busy times. City of Winkler • City of Winkler Police Service • There are 17 members on the police force. • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues regarding emergency services. RM of Rhineland • N/A • N/A Town of Gretna • Town of Altona RCMP • N/A Town of Altona • Town of Altona Police Service • Staffed by 1 chief of police, 1 sergeant, 1 corporal, 1 special constable and 5 constables. • There is also a RCMP community office in the Town of Altona. • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues regarding police services. Sources: Biles, Bramwell, Bray, Burgess, Epp, Gaultier, Greggor, Loewen, Oakes, Plett, Sawatzky, Trudel pers. comm., Brandon Police Service 2014, City of Morden 2014, RCMP 2014, RM of Lorne 2010, RM of Pembina 2010, RM of Stanley 2010, Town of Altona 2014, Town of Manitou 2014, Town of Souris Manitoba 2009a, Winkler Police Service 2014 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Fire Protection Services - Alberta Fire protection in the Alberta Socio-economic LSA and RSA is adequately supported through volunteer and career fire department. No capacity issues have been identified. Fire protection services in the municipalities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5.1.17-5.

TABLE 5.1.17-5

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN ALBERTA

Municipality Services Provided By Notes Town of Sedgewick • Town of Sedgewick Fire • Services provided include medical first response, motor vehicle collision response, Department hazardous materials first response, and wild land fire suppression and control for the town and surrounding communities. Town of Hardisty • Town of Hardisty Fire • Services provided include medical first response, motor vehicle collision response, Department hazardous materials first response, and wild land fire suppression and control for the town and surrounding communities. • Municipal representatives have indicated that the fire department is well-staffed by well-trained and equipped firefighters and capacity is not an issue. MD of Provost No. 52 • Provost Fire and Rescue • Municipal representatives have stated that there are no capacity issues with fire • Village of Amisk Fire protection services in the MD. Department • Czar Fire Department • Town of Hardisty Fire Department • Town of Wainwright Fire Department • CFB Wainwright Town of Provost • Provost Fire and Rescue • Fire department is well-staffed with volunteer who are trained and equipped to respond to oil and gas emergencies. • Municipal representatives do not anticipate any capacity issues regarding this service. Sources: Duffett, Larson, Lawrason, Miller pers. comm., Provost Fire and Rescue 2012, Town of Hardisty 2013, Town of Sedgwick 2013

Page 5-230

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Fire Protection Services - Saskatchewan Fire protection services in the municipalities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5.1.17-6. Fire protection services were not identified for the RM of Mariposa No. 350, RM of Winslow No. 319, Village of Dodsland, RM of Marriott No. 317, RM of Dufferin No. 190, RM of Francis No. 127, RM of Huron No. 223, Town of Lumsden or RM of South Qu’Appelle No. 157. Municipal representatives of the RM of Mariposa No. 350 stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project (Bohn pers. comm.).

TABLE 5.1.17-6

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Eye Hill No. 382 • Macklin and District Fire Board • No capacity issues are anticipated. Town of Macklin • Macklin and District Fire Board • The Town of Macklin has a fire hall staffed by 12 professional volunteer firefighters who are well-trained and well-equipped to fight oil and gas related fires. • No capacity issues are anticipated. RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 • Macklin and District Fire Board • N/A RM of Progress No. 351 • Town of Luseland Volunteer Fire • Municipal representatives have indicated that the entire RM of Progress Department No. 351 is fully covered by fire protection services and that there are no • Town of Kerrobert Volunteer Fire capacity issues. Department • There are volunteer first responders in the Town of Luseland who are • Town of Macklin Volunteer Fire able to respond to immediate emergencies. Department • The Town of Luseland fire department has one new fire truck as well as a service van. Town of Kerrobert • Town of Kerrobert Volunteer Fire • Staffed by 1 fire chief, 1 deputy fire chief and 18 volunteer firefighters. Department • The department has a fleet of 2 pumpers, 1 heavy rescue vehicle, 1 quick response/light rescue vehicle and 1 tanker. • Municipal representatives have stated that the town’s fire department is well-equipped and well-staffed and its members have special training for responding to oil and gas emergencies. RM of Mariposa No. 350 • N/A • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project. RM of Oakdale No. 320 • Village of Coleville Volunteer Fire • No capacity issues are anticipated. Department • Town of Kerrobert Volunteer Fire Department RM of Winslow No. 319 • Kindersley Volunteer Fire Department • No capacity issues are anticipated. Village of Dodsland • Town of Kerrobert Volunteer Fire Department • Volunteer fire departments in the villages of Dodsland, Coleville and Plenty RM of Mountain View • Town of Rosetown Fire Department • Municipal representative have indicated that the RM is fully covered by No. 318 • Kindersley Volunteer Fire Department fire protection services and that no capacity issues are anticipated. RM of Marriott No. 317 • N/A • N/A RM of St. Andrews No. 287 • Town of Rosetown Volunteer Fire • The volunteer fire departments in the towns of Rosetown and Kindersley Department have approximately 15 and 20 volunteer firefighters, respectively. • Kindersley Volunteer Fire Department • Fire protection service coverage is adequate in the RM of St. Andrews No. 287. Town of Rosetown • Town of Rosetown Fire Department • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues regarding fire protection services. RM of Milden No. 286 • Village of Milden Volunteer Fire • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues Department regarding fire protection services in the RM of Milden No. 286. • Village of Dinsmore Volunteer Fire Department Village of Milden • Village of Milden Fire Department • The Village of Milden has a fire hall. • Municipal representatives have stated that there are no capacity issues regarding emergency services.

Page 5-231

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-6 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Fertile Valley No. 285 • RM of Fertile Valley No. 285 • Municipal representatives have indicated that there are no capacity Volunteer Fire Department issues with this service. • Town of Outlook • Village of Macrorie Town of Outlook • Town of Outlook Volunteer Fire • Municipal representatives have stated that the fire department is well- Department equipped, well-staffed and its members well-trained. RM of Loreburn No. 254 • Village of Loreburn • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues • Village of Elbow Volunteer Fire experienced by the Village of Elbow Volunteer Fire Department. Department • Municipal representatives have indicated that fire trucks in the RM can run out of water when spraying and that some rural ratepayers have offered their water hauling equipment if needed. No other capacity issues have been identified. Village of Loreburn • Village of Loreburn Volunteer Fire • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues Department regarding any emergency services. Village of Elbow • Village of Elbow Volunteer Fire • Trained first responders are available. Department • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues experienced. RM of Wilner No. 253 • Davidson Volunteer Fire Department • The Davidson Volunteer Fire Department is equipped with 17 • Village of Loreburn Volunteer Fire firefighters, some with emergency medical care training, as well as 2 fire Department engines, 1 first response truck and 2 tankers. • Village of Elbow Volunteer Fire • STARS Air Ambulance is available in the RM of Wilner No. 253. Department • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues regarding emergency services. RM of Huron No. 223 • N/A • N/A Town of Davidson • Davidson Volunteer Fire Department • Staffed by 17 firefighters, some with emergency medical care training. • Equipped with 2 fire engines, 1 first response truck and 2 tankers. • Department staff is equipped and trained with the Jaws of Life in the event of a vehicle collision. • The Town of Davidson’s firefighting capacity is limited and assistance from the Town of Craik is available if needed. RM of Craik No. 222 • Davidson Volunteer Fire Department • N/A Town of Craik • Davidson Volunteer Fire Department • N/A RM of Dufferin No. 190 • N/A • N/A City of Moose Jaw • City of Moose Jaw Fire Department • There are 57 professionals on staff at two locations. • Provides Fire Services for surrounding RMs and communities. • Municipal representatives have no identified any capacity issues with the service. Village of Bethune • Village of Bethune Volunteer Fire • There is 1 pumping unit and 1 water truck available. Department • No capacity issues regarding this service are anticipated. RM of Pense No. 160 • RM of Pense No. 160 Volunteer Fire • Trained firefighters and first responders on staff. Department • City of Moose Jaw Fire Department • City of Regina Fire and Protective Services Department Town of Lumsden • N/A • N/A RM of Sherwood No. 159 • City of Regina Fire and Protective • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues in Services relation to fire protection services in the City of Regina. • See City of Regina for more details. Village of Grand Coulee • Village of Grand Coulee Volunteer • Prioritizes calls in the village, but also serves surrounding areas. Fire Department • There have been no capacity issues related to fire protection services. City of Regina • City of Regina Fire and Protective • Provides public education and a dispatch service with four full-time Services dispatchers. • All fire trucks are equipped with automated external defibrillators. • There are 13 front line fire trucks that are operated by firefighters who are trained as Level 1 first responders. • A total of 18 front line apparatus include pumper, rescue and ladder trucks. • Additional services include a Hazardous Materials Response Team, Jaws of Life program, Water and Ice Rescue and Technical Rescue teams.

Page 5-232

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-6 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes City of Regina (cont’d) • See above • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues in relation to fire protection services in the City of Regina. RM of Edenwold No. 158 • Town of White City Volunteer Fire • See Town of White City, Town of Balgonie and the City of Regina for Department more details. • Town of Balgonie Volunteer Fire Department • City of Regina Fire and Protective Services RM of South Qu’Appelle • N/A • N/A No. 157 Town of White City • Town of White City Volunteer Fire • There are 17 volunteer firefighters and 5 first responders on staff. Department • Equipment includes 2 pumper trucks, 1 tanker and 1 support vehicle. Town of Balgonie • Town of Balgonie Volunteer Fire • N/A Department (McIvor pers. comm.) RM of Lajord No. 128 • Town of White City Fire Department • According to municipal representatives, even though none of the • Village of Vibank Volunteer Fire departments have capacity issues, it is possible that they could be Department overwhelmed by an abundance of calls. • Community of Kronau RM of Francis No. 127 • N/A • N/A Village of Vibank • Village of Vibank Volunteer Fire • Staffed by 1 fire chief, 2 deputy fire chiefs, and 16 volunteer firefighters. Department • Municipal representatives have indicated that the fire department staff • RM of Francis Volunteer Fire largely commutes to the City of Regina for employment, resulting in Department slow response times in the Village of Vibank since the volunteer firefighters must travel back to the village to respond to calls. Village of Odessa • Village of Odessa Volunteer Fire • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues Department regarding this service. • Village of Vibank Volunteer Fire Department • Village of Francis Volunteer Fire Department RM of Montmartre No. 126 • Village of Montmartre Volunteer Fire • The Village of Montmartre’s fire department has 12 to 15 first Department responders and 2 fire trucks with service the RM. • There are no capacity issues with the service. Village of Kendal • Village of Montmartre Volunteer Fire • There are no capacity issues with the service. Department Village of Montmartre • Village of Montmartre Volunteer Fire • The Village of Montmartre’s fire department has 12 to 15 first Department responders and 2 fire trucks with service the village. • There are no capacity issues with the service. RM of Chester No. 125 • Village of Glenavon Fire Department • The Village of Glenavon Fire Department covers most of the RM. • Wolseley Fire Department • The Wolseley Fire Department covers some of the eastern part of the • Town of Grenfell Fire Department RM and the Town of Grenfell’s covers some of the northeast. Village of Glenavon • Village of Glenavon Fire Department • N/A RM of Kingsley No. 124 • Town of Kipling Volunteer Fire • Agreements with the towns in the RM require they provide emergency Department services in the RM. Town of Kipling • Town of Kipling Volunteer Fire • According to municipal representatives, no capacity issues are Department anticipated regarding fire protection services. RM of Silverwood No. 123 • Town of Whitewood Fire Department • Fire protection services in the RM of Silverwood No. 123 would respond • Town of Moosomin Fire Department to incidents along the replacement pipeline route. • Town of Broadview Fire Department • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues • Village of Wapella Fire Department regarding fire protection service in the RM. • Village of Kennedy Fire Department RM of Wawken No. 93 • Town of Wawota Volunteer Fire • The fire departments that serve the RM of Wawken No. 93 would Department respond to incidents along the replacement pipeline route. • Village of Kennedy Volunteer Fire Department RM of Walpole No. 92 • Village of Maryfield Volunteer Fire • No capacity issues have been identified. Department Town of Moosomin • Town of Moosomin Volunteer Fire • The fire department staffs 24 people, and while at times they are short Department staffed, capacity is never typically an issue.

Page 5-233

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-6 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes Village of Fairlight • Village of Maryfield Fire Department • According to municipal representatives, there are no anticipated capacity issues regarding police service in the Village of Fairlight. RM of Maryfield No. 91 • Village of Maryfield Volunteer Fire • Recently acquired new fire truck. Department • No capacity issues anticipated for emergency services. • The fire department is increasing training on dealing with oil and gas emergencies. Village of Maryfield • Village of Maryfield Fire Department • The village fire department has received a new fire truck and will respond to incidents along the replacement pipeline route. • Capacity issues are not anticipated by municipal representatives. Sources: Applin, Audette, Babecy, Berlin, Bohn, Brenner, Dakue, Deobald, Duck, Edom, Frazer, Gartner, Gintaut, Gould, Hagar, Heise, Heisler, Hoffman, J. Jones, Jess, Kemp, Kunz, Macdonald, Macksymchuk, Maxemniuk, Metz, McIvor, Michelman, Millard, Nieman, Piermantier, Pilat, Saville, Thorn, Wolfe pers. comm., City of Regina 2014a, City of Moose Jaw 2013, RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 2010, Town of Davidson 2014, Town of Kerrobert 2013, Town of Kipling 2014, Town of Macklin 2014, Town of Rosetown 2014, Town of White City 2014, Village of Elbow 2014, Village of Milden 2013, Village of Vibank 2014 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Fire Protection Services - Manitoba The Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Manitoba is well covered by fire protection services. No capacity issues or concerns have been identified. Fire protection services in the municipalities in the Socio- economic LSA and RSA are identified in Table 5.1.17-7.

TABLE 5.1.17-7

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN MANITOBA

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Wallace • Wallace District Fire Department • The Town of Virden and Village of Elkhorn fire stations serve the RM of Wallace with a total of 40 firefighters. RM of Pipestone • Wallace District Fire Department • Services provided by 2 fire stations with a total of 40 firefighters; 1 in the Town • RM of Pipestone Volunteer Fire of Reston and 1 in the Town of Virden. Department • According to municipal representatives, the fire departments have a good mutual aid system in place and capacity issues have not been experienced. • The RM of Pipestone Volunteer Fire Department also serves surrounding communities in its Mutual Aid District. Town of Virden • Wallace District Fire Department • Services are provided by 2 fire stations with a total of 40 firefighters. RM of Sifton • Oak Lake – Sifton Fire Department • Staffed by 15 members. • The fire department is equipped with a 1,000 gallon Superior pumper, 1,200 gallon tanker and a rescue van for carrying emergency equipment and emergency responders. RM of Glenwood • Town of Souris Volunteer Fire • There are 25 volunteer firefighters on staff. Department • Equipped with 2 pumper trucks, 1 water tanker, 1 rescue truck and 1 water rescue craft. • No capacity issues are anticipated. Town of Souris • Town of Souris Volunteer Fire • There are 25 volunteer firefighters on staff. Department • Equipped with 2 pumper trucks, 1 water tanker, 1 rescue truck and 1 water rescue craft. RM of Oakland • Brandon Fire and Emergency Services • The Wawanesa District Fire Department has a total of 26 volunteer • Wawanesa District Fire Department firefighters. • Town of Souris Volunteer Fire • The RM of Oakland has a fire protection agreement with the Town of Souris Department that covers the eastern part of the RM. • According to municipal representatives, there are no areas in the RM of Oakland that are not covered by fire protection services and capacity issues are not anticipated. City of Brandon • Brandon Fire and Emergency Services • Employed are 60 cross-trained firefighters/paramedics to respond to both fire and medical emergencies. • Provides fire protection and ambulatory services.

Page 5-234

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-7 Cont’d

Municipality Services Provided By Notes City of Brandon • See above • No anticipated capacity issues have been identified. (cont’d) Village of Wawanesa • Wawanesa District Fire Department • The fire department retains a total of 26 volunteer firefighters. • No capacity issues regarding fire protection services are anticipated. RM of South Cypress • Wawanesa District Fire Department • The Village of Glenboro Fire Department serves the entirety of the RM of Village of Glenboro • Village of Glenboro Fire Department South Cypress and the Wawanesa District Fire Department offers additional support when needed. RM of Argyle • Town of Baldur Volunteer Fire • Service is provided to the entirety of the RM of Argyle and the Town of Baldur Department Volunteer Fire Department will respond to emergencies related to the Project. • Glenboro South Cypress Fire • Capacity issues are not anticipated. Department • There are 18 volunteer firefighters on staff at the Town of Baldur Volunteer Fire Department. RM of Lorne • St. Leon Volunteer Fire Department • All fire departments provide fire and rescue services and would respond to • Swan Lake Volunteer Fire Department emergencies related to the pipeline. • Village of Somerset Volunteer Fire Department RM of Pembina • Town of Manitou Volunteer Fire • There are three local fire departments that provide fire protection services to Department the RM of Pembina. Town of Manitou • Town of Manitou Volunteer Fire • The Town of Manitou Volunteer Fire Department works closely with the fire Department departments in five neighbouring communities to provide fire protection services. • No capacity issues are anticipated. RM of Thompson • N/A • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project. RM of Stanley • Winkler Fire and Rescue • Staffed by 40 firefighters that contribute to fire protection and prevention • City of Morden Volunteer Fire services. Department • No capacity issues have been identified for the City of Morden Volunteer Fire Department. City of Morden • City of Morden Volunteer Fire • There is one full-time fire chief on staff. Department • Provides fire suppression, rescue, safety education, inspection, and environmental protection and disaster services. • No capacity issues have been identified. City of Winkler • Winkler Fire and Rescue • There are 40 firefighters who contribute to fire protection and prevention services. • Winkler Fire and Rescue works with neighbouring communities in the region to provide fire protection to a larger area. • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues regarding emergency services. RM of Rhineland • Altona and Rhineland Emergency • There are 25 volunteer firefighters on staff. Services • Services provided include firefighting, hazardous materials awareness, farm accident rescue, motor vehicle extrication and water rescue services. Town of Gretna • Town of Gretna Fire Department • Some training has been provided to staff by Enbridge Inc., Imperial Oil and Shell to provide specialized response to oil and gas emergencies. • No capacity issues with fire protection services have been identified. Town of Altona • Altona and Rhineland Emergency • There are 25 volunteer firefighters on staff. Services • Services provided include firefighting, hazardous materials awareness, farm accident rescue, motor vehicle extrication and water rescue services. • No capacity issues with fire protection services are anticipated. Sources: Biles, Bramwell, Burgess, Epp, Greggor, Gudnason, Oakes, Plett, Priestly, Sawatzky, Toews, Trudel, Unrau, Young pers. comm., City of Brandon 2014a, City of Morden 2014, City of Winkler 2014, Oak Lake and Area 2014, RM of Pipestone 2012, Town of Altona 2014, Town of Manitou 2014, Town of Souris Manitoba 2009a, Town of Virden 2013, Village of Wawanesa 2014

Ambulance Services - Alberta Ambulance services are available in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Alberta. No capacity issues have been identified for the communication in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA. Details about the ambulance services in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5.1.17-8.

Page 5-235

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-8

AMBULANCE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN ALBERTA

Municipality Services Provided By Notes Town of Sedgewick • Flagstaff County Emergency • Services are provided out of the Town of Killam. Medical Services (EMS) • There are six hospitals in the area surrounding the Town of Sedgewick and according to municipal representatives, any of the ambulances may be dispatched in the case of emergency. Town of Hardisty • Flagstaff County EMS • Ambulatory services are dispatched by Alberta Health Services. Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues. MD of Provost No. 52 • Town of Hardisty Hospital • According to municipal representatives, there are no anticipated capacity • Town of Provost Hospital issues regarding the ambulance service. Town of Provost • Town of Provost Hospital • According to municipal representatives, there are no anticipated capacity • Provost and District Ambulance issues regarding the ambulance service. Society Sources: Davis, Larson, Lawrason, Miller pers. comm., Town of Hardisty 2013, Town of Provost 2014.

Ambulance Services - Saskatchewan Details about the ambulance services in the Saskatchewan Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5.1.17-9. Ambulance services were not identified for the RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352, RM of Winslow No. 319, RM of Huron No. 223, RM of Dufferin No. 190, RM of Sherwood No. 159, RM of South Qu’Appelle No. 157, Town of Balgonie, or the Village of Glenavon.

TABLE 5.1.17-9

AMBULANCE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Eye Hill No. 382 • N/A • No capacity issues are anticipated. Town of Macklin • Town of Macklin Ambulance • Two ambulances operated by one permanent full-time employee and one part- Service time on-call employee. • No capacity issues are anticipated. RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 • N/A • N/A RM of Progress No. 351 • Town of Luseland Volunteer • According to municipal representatives, the volunteer ambulance service Ambulance Service experiences occasional capacity issues due to a shortage of volunteers. In times of staff shortages, ambulances are dispatched from communities further away, thus resulting is longer response times. Town of Kerrobert • N/A • The Town of Kerrobert is serviced by more than 100 First Responders who are a part of a full-service Emergency Response Team (ERT) in the Heartland Health Region. • The ERT includes ambulances and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). • According to municipal representatives, no capacity issues are anticipated. RM of Mariposa No. 350 • N/A • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project. RM of Oakdale No. 320 • Town of Kerrobert • STARS Air Ambulance is available in the RM. • Town of Kindersley • No concerns regarding capacity. RM of Winslow No. 319 • Dodsland Ambulance • No capacity issues are anticipated. Village of Dodsland • Town of Rosetown EMS • No capacity issues are anticipated. • Dodsland Ambulance • See below for details on Town of Rosetown EMS. RM of Mountain View • Town of Rosetown EMS • There is 1 full-time coordinator and 2 part-time members on staff. No. 318 • Two ambulances are available. RM of Marriott No. 317 • The EMS service receives approximately 320 calls per year, and aims to be on RM of St. Andrews the scene of an incident within 10 minutes of being contacted by the No. 287 dispatcher (20 minutes in rural areas). • EMS services collaborate with the Rosetown Fire Department, which has 10 first responder-trained firefighters and a goal to train 6 to 10 more. • Services are provided by the Heartland Health Region.

Page 5-236

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-9 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of St. Andrews • See above • There have been no emergencies involving oil and gas in the RM of Mountain No. 287 (cont’d) View No. 318 in the past. Town of Rosetown • Municipal representatives in the Town of Rosetown have indicated that there can be occasional capacity issues with the ambulance service, however, this is no longer expected to be an issue by the Project construction start date. RM of Milden No. 286 • Village of Dinsmore Ambulance • There is a minimum of three ambulances available in the RM of Milden Service No. 286, according to municipal representatives. • Village of Milden • There are no capacity issues regarding ambulance or emergency medical • Town of Outlook services in the RM of Milden No. 286. • Town of Rosetown EMS Village of Milden • Town of Outlook • Municipal representatives have stated that there are no capacity issues • Town of Rosetown regarding emergency services. • Village of Dinsmore RM of Fertile Valley • Town of Outlook Ambulance • According to municipal representatives there are no capacity issues with No. 285 Service service, however, there is often a shortage of qualified labour. Town of Outlook • Town of Outlook Ambulance • Municipal representatives have stated that there is currently a shortage of Service EMTs, however, the service is meeting the needs of the community. RM of Loreburn No. 254 • Town of Davidson and Area EMS • STARS Air Ambulance services the RM. • Town of Central Butte • There are normally no capacity issues for ambulance service in the RM. • Town of Outlook Village of Loreburn • Town of Davidson and Area EMS • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues regarding any emergency services. Village of Elbow • Town of Outlook • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues with any • Town of Davidson emergency services. • Town of Central Butte RM of Wilner No. 253 • Town of Davidson and Area EMS • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues regarding emergency services. RM of Huron No. 223 • N/A • N/A Town of Davidson • Town of Davidson and Area EMS • On staff are 4 Emergency Medical Responders, 2 Emergency Medical Technicians and 2 Advanced Emergency Medical Technicians. • The Town of Davidson and Area EMS respond to an average of 250 calls annually. • Ambulances from nearby areas will also respond to calls in the area, if needed. • The STARS air ambulance has responded to calls in the Town of Davidson in the past and services are dispatched from the City of Regina. • Under normal conditions, capacity of the service is not an issue. RM of Craik No. 222 • Town of Davidson and Area EMS • N/A Town of Craik • Town of Davidson and Area EMS • N/A RM of Dufferin No. 190 • N/A • N/A City of Moose Jaw • Five Hills Health Region • Over 150 first responders and over 60 different EMS practitioners are • City of Moose Jaw Private employed by the Five Hills Health Region. Ambulance Service • Three ambulance services serve an area over 18,000 km². • Services include many educational and training opportunities. • The Moose Jaw Private Ambulance Service has about five ambulance vehicles. • There are no known capacity issues regarding the ambulance services available in the city. Village of Bethune • Village of Bethune Volunteer First • According to municipal representatives, there is no capacity issues related to Responders Unit ambulatory services. • Town of Lumsden RM of Pense No. 160 • City of Moose Jaw Ambulance • N/A Service • City of Regina Ambulance Service Town of Lumsden • Town of Lumsden Volunteer First • First Responders are dispatched to provide emergency medical services until Responders an ambulance arrives. • These First Responders are trained by Emergency Medical Services personnel and meet regularly to maintain and update their skills. RM of Sherwood No. 159 • N/A • N/A

Page 5-237

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-9 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes Village of Grand Coulee • City of Regina • Ambulance services for the Village of Grand Coulee are provided by the City • Village of Grand Coulee First of Regina, however, there are first responders in the village. Responders • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues related to ambulatory services in the Village of Grand Coulee. City of Regina • Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region • Services do not experience capacity issues, however, there are peak times. • City of Regina’s fire department will provide first responders when needed, however, will not transport patients. • STARS air ambulance currently lands at its base at Regina International Airport and Ground transportation transports patients to the City of Regina’s hospitals. • Regina General Hospital is currently building a helipad on its roof to accommodate STARS. RM of Edenwold No. 158 • Town of White City First • The Town of White City has approximately five first responders that serve the Responders RM. • City of Regina RM of South Qu’Appelle • N/A • N/A No. 157 Town of White City • Town of White City First • The Town of White City has approximately five first responders that serve the Responders RM of Edenwold No. 158, which includes the Town of White City. Town of Balgonie • N/A • N/A RM of Lajord No. 128 • City of Regina • Ambulance service covers the entire RM of Lajord No. 128. • Town of White City • According to municipal representative, there have been no capacity issues and none are anticipated during construction. RM of Francis No. 127 • Village of Odessa • There are 12 trained first responders in the Village of Odessa who are • Village of Vibank available to the RM of Francis No. 127, in addition to first responders in the • Town of Indian Head Village of Vibank. • Village of Fillmore • STARS Air Ambulance available to the RM of Francis No. 127. • Village of Montmartre • The nearest ground ambulance services are based out of the Town of Indian Head and the Village of Fillmore. • If needed, the Village of Montmartre may respond to calls from the RM of Francis No. 127. Village of Vibank • City of Regina • STARS Air Ambulance serves the Village of Vibank when needed. • Town of Indian Head Ambulance • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues regarding this Service service. Village of Odessa • Village of Odessa Volunteer First • There are 12 trained first responders on staff. Responders • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues. • Village of Vibank • Village of Francis RM of Montmartre • Indian Head Ambulance Service • Village of Montmartre First responders are dispatched to provide EMS until an No. 126 • Wolseley Ambulance Service ambulance arrives. • There are no capacity issues regarding ambulance services. Village of Kendal • N/A • There are no capacity issues regarding ambulance services. Village of Montmartre • Indian Head Ambulance Service • Village of Montmartre First responders are dispatched to provide EMS until an • Wolseley Ambulance Service ambulance arrives. • There are no capacity issues regarding ambulance services. RM of Chester No. 125 • Town of Kipling • The Town of Kipling’s ambulance service would likely cover incidents along • Town of Grenfell the replacement pipeline route in the RM. • Hamlet of Wolseley Village of Glenavon • N/A • N/A RM of Kingsley No. 124 • N/A • Agreements with the towns in the RM require they provide emergency services in the RM. Town of Kipling • Town of Kipling • Capacity issues are not anticipated regarding the ambulance service, however, municipal representatives indicated the service has been dispatched from the Town of Wawota, which is about 30 minutes away, due to staff vacations. RM of Silverwood No. 123 • Town of Whitewood • The RM has contracts with the towns of Kipling and Whitewood for ambulance • Town of Moosomin service. • Town of Kipling • Municipal representatives are not aware of any current capacity issues regarding ambulance services.

Page 5-238

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-9 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Wawken No. 93 • Town of Wawota Ambulance • Town of Wawota has an ambulance that will respond to calls along the Service replacement pipeline route in the RM of Silverwood No. 123. RM of Walpole No. 92 • Town of Wawota Provincial • No capacity issues have been identified. Ambulance Service Town of Moosomin • Hutch’s Ambulance Service • The Town of Moosomin owns an ambulance van. • Service is provided by a privately-owned business. Village of Fairlight • Village of Maryfield • According to municipal representatives, there are no anticipated capacity • Town of Moosomin issues regarding ambulatory services in the Village of Fairlight. RM of Maryfield No. 91 • Village of Maryfield • One ambulance services the entirety of the RM of Maryfield. • Capacity issues are not anticipated for emergency services. Village of Maryfield • Village of Maryfield Ambulance • The village has one ambulance which will respond to incidents along the Service replacement pipeline route. Sources: Applin, Audette, Babecy, Berlin, Bohn, Brenner, Deobald, Duck, Edom, Gintaut, Goodsman, Gould, Heise, Heisler, Hoffman, Jess, J. Jones, Kay, M. Stronski, MacDonald, Macksymchuk, Macomber, Maxemniuk, Metz, Michelman, Millard, N. Stronski, Nieman, Piermantier, Saville, Wolfe pers. comm., Five Hills Health Region 2014, Saskatchewan East Enterprise Region 2012, Town of Davidson 2014, Town of Kerrobert 2013, Town of Lumsden 2007, Town of Rosetown 2014, Town of White City 2014, Village of Bethune 2014, Village of Montmartre 2014, Village of Odessa 2014. Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Ambulance Services - Manitoba Details about the ambulance services in the Manitoba Socio-economic LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5.1.17-10. Ambulance services were not identified for the RM of Wallace, RM of Sifton, RM of Glenwood, Town of Souris, RM of Stanley, RM of Rhineland or the Town of Gretna.

TABLE 5.1.17-10

AMBULANCE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN MANITOBA

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Wallace N/A N/A RM of Pipestone • Town of Virden Paid Ambulance • The Village of Reston has an understaffed ambulance service that covers an area Service too large for its capacity. • Village of Reston Ambulance • While both ambulance services serve the RM of Pipestone, according to municipal Service representatives, there are regular capacity issues that may still be an issue during Project construction. Town of Virden • Virden Health Centre • The local airport provides air ambulance service. • The Town of Virden has a paid ambulance service that services the RM of Pipestone. RM of Sifton • N/A • N/A RM of Glenwood • Souris Health Centre – Prairie • No capacity issues are anticipated. Mountain Health Town of Souris • N/A • N/A RM of Oakland • Province of Manitoba EMS • According to municipal representatives, service is expected to expand in the near future. • Municipal representatives are not aware of any past capacity issues nor are any anticipated. City of Brandon • Brandon Fire and Emergency • Employed are 60 firefighters/paramedics. Services • Brandon Fire and Emergency Services provide emergency paramedic services and • Prairie Mountain Health ambulatory services for the City of Brandon in partnership with Prairie Mountain Health. • No capacity issues as a result of the Project have been identified. Village of • Village of Wawanesa • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues regarding Wawanesa ambulance services in the Village of Wawanesa. RM of South • Village of Wawanesa • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues regarding Cypress • Town of Carberry ambulance services in either the RM of South Cypress or the Village of Glenboro. Village of Glenboro • Village of Baldur

Page 5-239

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-10 Cont'd

Municipality Services Provided By Notes RM of Argyle • Town of Baldur Volunteer • Service is provided to the entirety of the RM of Argyle and the Town of Baldur Ambulance Service Volunteer Ambulance Service will respond to emergencies related to the Project. • Capacity issues are not anticipated. • Town of Baldur has one ambulance. RM of Lorne • Southern Health-Santé Sud • Manitoba Health should be contacted for more information regarding the services • Swan Lake ambulance service provided. • Village of Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes ambulance service • Village of Somerset ambulance service RM of Pembina • Pembina Manitou Ambulance • N/A Service Town of Manitou • Pembina Manitou Ambulance • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues. Service • Boundary Trails Hospital RM of Thompson • N/A • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project. RM of Stanley • N/A • N/A City of Morden • Boundary Trails Health Centre • The Boundary Trails Health Centre is located between the cities of Morden and Winkler and is run by the regional health authority. • According to municipal representatives there have been no capacity issues in the past, and there are none anticipated during construction of the Project. City of Winkler • Boundary Trails Health Centre • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues regarding emergency services. RM of Rhineland • N/A • N/A Town of Gretna • N/A • N/A Town of Altona • Altona and Rhineland Emergency • The service responds to emergency calls through the 911 emergency services. Services • The Altona Community Memorial Health Centre provides ambulatory and • The Altona Community Memorial emergency services for the Town of Altona. Health Centre • No capacity issues with ambulance services are anticipated. Sources: Biles, Bramwell, Epp, Greggor, Gudnason, Loewen, Oakes, Plett, R. Jones, Trudel, Young pers. comm., City of Brandon 2014b, City of Morden 2014, RM of Lorne 2010, Town of Altona 2014, Town of Manitou 2014, Town of Virden 2013 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

5.1.17.4 Health Care Services During construction and operations of the replacement pipeline, workers in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA may require the use of hospitals, health centres or medical clinics. Project-related medical incidents are rare, however, workers living in and around communities may need health care services for everyday medical needs. Below is a summary of health care services available in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, the following issues and concerns were identified regarding health care services:

• Concern was expressed about the provision of emergency and health care services in the Socio- economic LSA and RSA. An influx of temporary workers could cause increased pressure on health care providers, including hospitals and, in turn, causes capacity issues that affect both the residents and temporary workers. Some communities expressed concern that they already have shortages of personnel or infrastructure (Audette, Beck, Edom, Gartner, Gintaut, Greggor, Heise, Heisler, Lawrason, Macksymchuk, Macomber, Saville, Young pers. comm.).

Health care services along the replacement pipeline route are described in Tables 5.1.17-11 to 5.1.17-13. Additional information is provided in Appendix 11.

Page 5-240

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Alberta Alberta Health Services provides ground and air ambulance services throughout Alberta and is divided into regional zones. Starting in the Town of Hardisty, the replacement pipeline route crosses the Central Zone of Alberta Health Services.

Table 5.1.17-11 describes the health care services available and any issues, concerns or comments identified in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Alberta.

TABLE 5.1.17-11

HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN ALBERTA

Serviced Municipalities Health Care Region in the LSA Infrastructure, Services Provided and Capacity Alberta Health • Town of Sedgewick • There is a clinic located in the town of Sedgewick. Services – Central • Issues regarding capacity were unknown by municipal representatives. Zone • Town of Hardisty • No capacity issues at the Hardisty Health Care Centre. • MD of Provost No. 52 • Provost Health Care Center • Town of Hardisty Hospital • Municipal representatives have indicated that the hospital in the Town of Provost experiences periodic staff shortages and occasionally has to close. • Town of Provost • Municipal representatives have stated that the health care facility is staffed by three full-time doctors and no capacity issues are anticipated during Project construction. Sources: Davis, Larson, Lawrason, Miller pers. comm., Alberta Community Profiles 2014, Alberta Health Services 2014

Saskatchewan Table 5.1.17-12 describes the health care services available and any issues, concerns or comments identified in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Saskatchewan. Health care services were not identified for the RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352, RM of Marriott No. 317, RM of Huron No. 223, RM of Dufferin No. 190, RM of Sherwood No. 159, RM of South Qu’Appelle, Town of White City, Town of Balgonie or RM of Maryfield No. 91.

TABLE 5.1.17-12

HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Health Care Serviced Municipalities Service Area in the LSA Infrastructure, Services Provided and Capacity Heartland Health • RM of Eye Hill No. 382 • Residents in the RM are required to travel to the towns of Provost or Unity for access to a Region doctor, however, access to local physicians in expected to be in place by 2017. • Town of Macklin • Town of Macklin has two local physicians on staff. • Part of the Greenhead Health District, which is managed by the Heartland Health Region and currently has two local physicians on staff. • RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 • N/A • RM of Progress No. 351 • Residents in need of acute care visit the hospital in the Town of Kerrobert. Municipal representatives have indicated that a new hospital is currently under construction in the town. • There is a small medical office in the Town of Luseland that is staffed by a medical doctor from the Town of Kerrobert twice per week on Tuesdays and Fridays. • Some residents travel to the Town of Unity for health care services. • Town of Kerrobert • The following health services are available in the Town of Kerrobert: the new Integrated Community Health Centre, which is currently under construction; the Kerrobert Health Centre, which provides long term care, adult day programs, inpatient acute care, diagnostic services and 24/7 EMS; and the KLD Health Clinic, which is attended on a daily basis by a doctor in Kerrobert. • The Integrated Community Health Centre is expected to be completed by July, 2014. • The current hospital is staffed by one doctor and one nurse practitioner. Both the existing hospital and the one under construction will have a 6 to 10 bed capacity.

Page 5-241

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-12 Cont’d

Health Care Serviced Municipalities Service Area in the LSA Infrastructure, Services Provided and Capacity Heartland Health • Town of Kerrobert (cont’d) • No capacity issues are anticipated with regard to health care services in the town. Region (cont’d) • RM of Mariposa No. 350 • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project. • RM of Oakdale No. 320 • Residents in the RM are required to travel to either the Town of Kerrobert or the Town of Kindersley for health care services. • Capacity issues are not anticipated by municipal representatives. • RM of Winslow No. 319 • Currently there are no capacity issues, however, when there is a shortage of doctors capacity can become an issue. • Village of Dodsland • Currently there are no capacity issues, however, when there is a shortage of doctors capacity can become an issue. • RM of Mountain View • Residents in the RM travel to the towns of Rosetown or Biggar for health care services. No. 318 • Rosetown and Biggar both have hospitals and neither have capacity issues. Rosetown has a long-term care facility and one is currently being built in Biggar. • RM of Marriott No. 317 • N/A • RM of St. Andrews • Foot care clinic, a chiropractic centre, health consulting, occupational therapy and No. 287 physiotherapy. • Most residents access the hospital in the Town of Rosetown for acute care. Specialists are typically sought in the City of Saskatoon. • The hospital in the Town of Rosetown has adequate capacity for the current population. • Town of Rosetown • Medical and emergency services, long term care services, home care services, and community and other health services are all available to those in the Town of Rosetown. • There is a hospital, a health centre and a new, 54 bed long-term care facility in the Town of Rosetown. Capacity is not anticipated to be an issue. • RM of Milden No. 286 • There are no health care services in the RM of Milden No. 286, however, there is a doctor who travels between medical clinics in the villages of Dinsmore and Milden. • Hospitals in the town of Rosetown and Outlook are accessible to people in the RM of Milden No. 286 for their health care service needs. • Village of Milden • Municipal representatives have stated that there are no full-time health care services in the village and that a doctor from the Town of Outlook visits the town once per week on Wednesdays. For emergencies and acute care, residents travel to the towns of Rosetown or Outlook. • No capacity issues with the health care services that are available in the village are anticipated. • RM of Fertile Valley • Residents of the RM travel to the Town of Outlook or the Village of Dinsmore for health No. 285 care services, with the majority visiting the Town of Outlook. • Municipal representatives have stated that there are no capacity issues with health care services. • Town of Outlook • The Town of Outlook has a hospital, medical clinic, optometrist, dental clinic, chiropractor, massage therapist, counselling services and home care as well as a Level 4 Senior’s Care Centre, Private Seniors Home and the new Integrated Outlook and District Health Centre. • Municipal representatives have indicated that there have been past periodic shortages of doctors resulting in the emergency department in the hospital being on weekend bypass. These concerns are anticipated to be rectified by the Project construction start date. • RM of Loreburn No. 254 • Residents of the RM visit the Town of Outlook, City of Saskatoon, Town of Davidson or the Town of Craik for health care services. • The hospital in the Town of Outlook has two or three doctors. • Municipal representatives are not aware of any capacity issues at the hospital in the Town of Outlook. • No capacity issues regarding health care services available to residents in the RM are anticipated by municipal representatives. • Village of Loreburn • Residents of the Village of Loreburn travel to the Town of Outlook or the Town of Davidson for health care services. • Municipal representatives have stated that there are no capacity issues with health care services. Five Hills Health • Village of Elbow • The nearest hospitals are in the Town of Outlook, the City of Saskatoon and the City of Region Moose Jaw. • RM of Wilner No. 253 • People in the RM travel to the Town of Davidson or the City of Saskatoon for health care services. • RM of Huron No. 223 • N/A

Page 5-242

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-12 Cont’d

Health Care Serviced Municipalities Service Area in the LSA Infrastructure, Services Provided and Capacity Five Hills Health • Town of Davidson • The Davidson Health Centre is located in the Town of Davidson and capacity is often an Region (cont’d) issue since there is only one doctor and one pharmacist on staff and they are only available during the week. On weekends, people seeking medical attention must travel to the City of Saskatoon. • RM of Craik No. 222 • Health care services are provided in the Town of Craik and the closest hospital is in the Town of Moose Jaw. • Municipal representatives have indicated that there are capacity issues at the health centre in the Town of Craik and that some people travel to the cities of Regina or Moose Jaw. • STARS Air Ambulance is available in the RM of Craik No. 222. • Town of Craik • The Craik Health Care Centre handles 24 hour emergency health services, out-patient care, long-term care, and respite care, among other services. • Offers a resident physician, physiotherapy clinics, baby and infant clinics, community health services, and Meals on Wheels. • The doctor’s office is generally open from Monday to Friday. • RM of Dufferin No. 190 • N/A • City of Moose Jaw • The City of Moose Jaw is served by the Union Hospital. A new replacement hospital with STARS Air Ambulance service is currently under construction and is planned to be operational in 2015. • According to municipal representatives, there are no capacity issues with the Union Hospital. Regina Qu’Appelle • Village of Bethune • People in the Village of Bethune access health care services either at the health clinic in Health Region the Town of Lumsden or at the hospital in the City of Regina for more serious issues. • The health clinic in the Town of Lumsden reportedly experiences capacity issues. • RM of Pense No. 160 • There is no medical centre in the RM and residents seek medical services in the cities of Regina or Moose Jaw, neither of which experience capacity issues. • Town of Lumsden • Health care services offered include: a medical clinic; a dental clinic; chiropractic clinics; a public health nurse; massage therapists; a pharmacy; seniors’ homes; drop-in counselling services; and physiotherapy. • According to municipal representatives, the health clinic in the Town of Lumsden experiences capacity issues. • RM of Sherwood No. 159 • N/A • Village of Grand Coulee • The majority of people in the village access health care services in the City of Regina, as there are no health care facilities in the Village of Grand Coulee. • City of Regina • There are two hospitals in the City of Regina, neither of which experience ongoing capacity issues, however, emergency rooms can become crowded and there can be bed shortages during the cold and flu season. • RM of Edenwold No. 158 • Residents go to the City of Regina for health care services. • RM of South Qu’Appelle • N/A • Town of White City • N/A • Town of Balgonie • N/A • RM of Lajord No. 128 • Residents in the RM of Lajord No. 128 visit the City of Regina for medical and health care needs. There is also a clinic in the Town of White City frequented by residents. • Municipal representatives are unaware of any capacity issues regarding the health care services available to people in the RM of Lajord No. 128. • RM of Francis No. 127 • The nearest medical facility and services are located in the Village of Montmartre. • Village of Vibank • The residents of the village typically have to travel to the Town of White City or the City of Regina for health care services. • According to municipal representatives, the entire region is facing capacity issues, more so in the Town of Indian Head, Village of Montmartre, City of Regina and many of the small communities in the surrounding RM (RM of Francis No. 127). • Village of Odessa • According to municipal representatives, residents of the village must travel to the City of Regina or the Town of Indian Head for acute or emergency health services. • RM of Montmartre No. 126 • There is a health care centre in the Village of Montmartre with a medical clinic and some beds, however, no acute care. • There are no capacity issues at the health care centre. • Village of Kendal • Municipal representatives do not anticipate any capacity issues regarding the health care services available to the residents of the village.

Page 5-243

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-12 Cont’d

Health Care Serviced Municipalities Service Area in the LSA Infrastructure, Services Provided and Capacity Regina Qu’Appelle • Village of Montmartre • The local health centre provides long term care, outpatient services, ambulatory and Health Region community health services (public health, mental health, addictions, nutrition, community (cont’d) therapy and health promotion) and is attended weekly by a physician. • The health centre has laboratory and x-ray services and visiting professional services are available monthly, and the centre can conduct minor procedures, however, there is no acute care. • There are no capacity issues at the health centre. Sun Country Health • RM of Chester No. 125 • Residents have access to hospitals in the Town of Kipling and the Hamlet of Wolseley. Region • The Village of Grenfell has a health centre and residents can access services in the City of Regina. • Village of Glenavon • Residents have access to hospitals in the Town of Kipling and the Hamlet of Wolseley. • The Village of Grenfell has a health centre and residents can access services in the City of Regina. • RM of Kingsley No. 124 • There is a hospital in the Town of Kipling as well as a new one that is currently under construction. • There is a hospital to the north in the Town of Broadville. • The RM of Kingsley No. 124 is split between the Regina-Qu’Appelle and Sun Country Health Regions. • Town of Kipling • There is a new hospital under construction in the Town of Kipling due to be complete by late 2014 or early 2015. • Municipal representatives have indicated that the hospital facility is fully staffed with doctors. Sun Country Health • RM of Silverwood No. 123 • The hospital located in the Town of Moosomin provides health care services to residents Region (cont’d) in the RM of Silverwood No. 123. • There is a medical centre located in the Town of Whitewood and a new hospital is being built in the Town of Kipling. • Municipal representatives do not anticipate any capacity issues regarding the health care services available to the residents of the RM. • RM of Wawken No. 93 • Town of Wawota Medical Centre provides health care services during the week including laboratory and x-ray facilities. • Doctors travel to the Town of Wawota from the Town of Moosomin one or two times per week. • The closest hospital is located in the Town of Moosomin and municipal representatives have indicated there may be capacity issues, as the hospital serves a large area. • RM of Walpole No. 92 • There is a doctor in the Town of Wawota two to three days per week. • The closest emergency facility is in the Town of Moosomin. • Town of Moosomin • The town has a chiropractic office, dental clinics, an optometrist office, addiction services, adult day care, community therapy services, home care services, mental health services, public health offices, the Moosomin Therapy Centre, the Southeast Integrated Care Centre and the Moosomin Family Practice Centre. • The hospital in the Town of Moosomin serves as the primary medical facility in the area. • According to municipal representatives, there may be capacity issues with health care services as a result of construction crews staying in the area. • Village of Fairlight • Municipal representatives have indicated that the residents of the Village of Fairlight travel to the Village of Maryfield or the Town of Moosomin for health care services. • According to municipal representatives, no capacity issues are anticipated. • RM of Maryfield No. 91 • There is a medical clinic in the Village of Maryfield with doctors that come in from the Town of Moosomin twice per week and a nurse practitioner four times per week. • The closest hospital is the Southeast Integrated Care Centre (SICC) 45 km away in the Town of Moosomin. • Capacity issues have been identified at the SICC due to closure at Village of Maryfield Medical Clinic and a shortage of staff at both the medical clinic and the SICC. • RM of Maryfield No. 91 • N/A • Village of Maryfield • There is a medical clinic in the Village of Maryfield with two doctors that each visit once per week as well as a nurse practitioner who is employed five days per week. • The village has a home care nurse, public health nurse, home care case manager, social worker, mental health nurse, dietician and occupational therapist. • All other health care services are provided in the Town of Moosomin.

Page 5-244

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-12 Cont’d

Sources: Applin, Babecy, Berlin, Bohn, Brenner, Dakue, Edom, Frazer, Gintaut, Goodsman, Gould, Heise, Heisler, Hoff, J. Jones, Jess, Kemp, Kunz, Listrom, Losie, M. Stronski, MacDonald, Macksymchuk, Macomber, Maxemniuk, Metz, Michelman, Millard, N. Stronski, Nieman, Olynyk, Piermantier, Saville, Wolfe, Yates pers. comm., RM of St. Andrews 2010, RM of Craik and Town of Craik 2014, Town of Lumsden 2007, Town of Macklin 2014, Town of Moosomin 2014, Town of Outlook 2009, Town of Rosetown 2014, Village of Maryfield 2014, Village of Montmartre 2014. Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Manitoba Table 5.1.17-13 describes the health care services and any issues, concerns or comments identified available in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Manitoba. Health care services were not identified for the RM of Sifton or the RM of Rhineland.

TABLE 5.1.17-13

HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN MANITOBA

Serviced Municipalities Health Care Region in the LSA Infrastructure, Services Provided and Capacity Prairie Mountain Health • RM of Wallace • Residents in the RM of Wallace receive health care services in the Town of Virden and the Region Town of Moosomin. • RM of Pipestone • There is a health clinic in the Village of Reston but more serious emergency medical services are available in the Town of Virden or the Town of Melita. • The Reston Health Centre includes a medical centre, lab and x-ray services, and personal care home. • Emergency services are available at the Virden and Melita Hospitals. • Municipal representatives are unaware of any medical service capacity issues in the Town of Virden. • Town of Virden • Virden Health Centre offers emergency services, acute care and diagnostic services to the residents of the Town of Virden and nearby areas. • RM of Sifton • N/A • RM of Glenwood • Municipal representatives are not aware of any anticipated capacity issues, however, there are currently doctor shortages. • Town of Souris • Served by the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority. • Facilities and services include the Souris Medical Clinic, Souris Long Term Care Facility, Souris River Chiropractic, Souris Dental Centre, laboratory and x-ray services, personal home care, Whitfield Drugs, massage therapy and homeopathic medicine. • RM of Oakland • According to municipal representatives, residents from the RM of Oakland travel to the City of Brandon for medical services, which are also available in the Town of Souris. • City of Brandon • Brandon Regional Health Authority provides health care for the City of Brandon. • The Brandon Regional Health Centre provides medical, surgical, intensive and palliative care as well as emergency and ambulatory services. • According to municipal representatives, the Brandon Regional Health Centre is a major regional centre and maintains emergency services year round with no foreseen capacity issues. • Village of Wawanesa • The village has a hospital with 6 acute care beds, diagnostic services, public health services, mental health services and home care services as well as 20 long-term care beds as well as 1 family physician, 1 nurse practitioner, a palliative care program, occupational and physiotherapy services, dietician services, pharmacy services, meals on wheels and a community bath program. • Patients whose needs cannot be met by the Wawanesa medical centre are referred to the Brandon General Hospital. • No capacity issues regarding health care services are anticipated. • RM of South Cypress • Residents of the RM of South Cypress access health care services in the Village of Glenboro if they live in the east portion of the RM South Cypress and in the Village of Wawanesa if they live in the west. • There is a clinic in the Village of Wawanesa and a hospital in the Village of Glenboro that do not have any capacity issues. • Village of Glenboro • There is a hospital in the Village of Glenboro and, according to municipal representatives, does not have any capacity issues.

Page 5-245

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-13 Cont’d

Serviced Municipalities Health Care Region in the LSA Infrastructure, Services Provided and Capacity Prairie Mountain Health • RM of Argyle • There is a medical clinic in the Town of Baldur. Region (cont’d) • There are two hospitals which serve the RM of Argyle; the Village of Glenboro hospital and the Town of Killarney hospital. • All three facilities share staff, resulting in some capacity and staffing issues. • No capacities issues are anticipated by municipal representatives. • City of Morden • Served by the Boundary Trails Health Centre. Southern Health-Santé • RM of Lorne • Served by two hospitals; the Lorne Memorial hospital located in the Town of Swan Lake, Sud and the Notre Dame hospital located in Village of Notre Dame de Lourdes. • There is also a hospital and a medical clinic in the Village of Somerset. The facilities in the Village of Somerset are the closest to the replacement pipeline route. • The facilities are limited in size and municipal representatives are unaware of any capacity issues. • RM of Pembina • RM of Pembina has a health centre that provides services such as family physicians, laboratory and x-ray services, mental health services and palliative care. • People in the RM of Pembina access health care services in the Town of Manitou or the cities of Morden or Winkler. • Town of Manitou • Residents of the Town of Manitou visit either the Pembina-Manitou Health Centre or Boundary Trails Health Centre for health care services. The Pembina-Manitou Health Centre has a medical clinic, a diagnostics laboratory, ambulance services and community health care services. • The Pembina-Manitou Health Centre has been identified as more of a clinic than an emergency facility. Individuals needing emergency care are sent to the City of Morden. • The Boundary Trails Health Centre is located outside of the Town of Manitou and offers medical, surgical, intensive care and laboratory services as well as emergency and ambulatory services. • There is a nurse practitioner on staff at the Pembina-Manitou Health centre and it is attached to the Pembia nursing home. A similar facility exists in the Town of Swan Lake. • Municipal representatives not aware of any capacity issues. • RM of Thompson • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project. • RM of Stanley • The RM of Stanley has medical infrastructure and services as follows: the Dr. C. W. Wiebe Medical Centre in Winkler; the Agassiz Medical Centre in Morden; the Boundary Trails Health Centre in the RM of Stanley, which is operated by the Central Regional Health Authority; and the Eden Health Centre in Winkler. • The RM has several senior care and assisted living facilities located in the cities of Winkler and Morden. • Capacity issues at the Boundary Trails Health Centre have been identified and expansion of the facility is believed to be required by municipal representatives. • City of Morden • Served by the Boundary Trails Health Centre. • Boundary Trails Health Centre is located between the City of Winkler and the City of Morden and provides services such as emergency, medical, surgical, intensive care and laboratory services. • Residents of the City of Morden can also visit the Agassiz Medical Centre. • City of Winkler • The Boundary Trails Health Centre offers medical and health care services to the residents of the City of Winkler. • The Boundary Trails Health Centre is located between the City of Winkler and the City of Morden and provides services such as emergency, medical, surgical, intensive care and laboratory services. • According to municipal representatives, there have not been any capacity issues with the health care facilities or services, nor are any expected during construction. • Residents of the City of Winkler have access to the Dr. C. W. Wiebe Medical Centre. • RM of Rhineland • N/A • Town of Gretna • The hospital in the Town of Altona is the closest medical facility to the Town of Gretna. • Town of Altona • The town has one hospital, the Altona Community Memorial Health Centre, and a medical clinic. Sources: Biles, Bramwell, Burgess, Epp, Gaultier, Greggor, Gudnason, Oakes, Plaetinck, Plett, Priestly, Sawatzky, Toews, Trudel, Unrau, Young pers. comm., Brandon Regional Health Authority 2014, City of Morden 2014, City of Winkler 2014, RM of Lorne 2010, RM of Pembina 2010, RM of Pipestone 2012, RM of Stanley 2010, Southern Health-Santé Sud 2013, Town of Manitou 2014, Town of Souris Manitoba 2009a, Town of Virden 2013, Village of Wawanesa 2014. Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Page 5-246

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.1.17.5 Waste Management There are no known issues with respect to the capacity of waste management facilities in the vicinity of the replacement pipeline route and, therefore, the need for expanded waste management facilities or services is not anticipated. Solid waste arising from construction of all components of the replacement pipeline will be trucked offsite and disposed of at an appropriate facility. Liquid wastes will be drained prior to being placed in waste containers, unless the containers have screens or valves, and disposed of through a deep well disposal method or evaporation with appropriate approvals and licenses. For more information on waste management refer to Appendix 11.

The Project’s Waste Management Plan is designed to assist both Enbridge personnel and contractors with the identification of appropriate waste management practices for each waste type generated by Enbridge operations (Appendix 1A). It is applicable to both non-hazardous and hazardous wastes and is consistent with Enbridge’s Environmental Policy (Appendix 1A).

Enbridge continues to revise its waste management practices to meet the requirements of legislation and regulations and to keep up with advancements in treatment technologies.

Alberta Waste management concerns have not been identified in the Alberta Socio-economic LSA and RSA. A summary of solid and liquid waste handling facilities for communities within the Socio-economic LSA in Alberta is presented in Table 5.1.17-14.

TABLE 5.1.17-14

COMMUNITY SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL STUDY AREA IN ALBERTA

Solid Waste Infrastructure Community (Operator) Information on Solid Waste Management Wastewater System Capacity Town of Flagstaff Regional • Non-hazardous commercial and industrial • There are sewage • There are no Sedgewick Solid Waste wastes can be disposed of directly at the lagoons in the Town capacity issues in Management Flagstaff Regional Solid Waste Management of Sedgewick for regards to the Association Class Association Class 2 Landfill located north of municipal and sewage lagoons. 2 Landfill the Town of Sedgewick. recreational vehicle • Paper and plastics recycling programs are dumping only. available in the Town of Daysland, the Village of Strome, the Town of Killam, the Town of Sedgewick and the Town of Hardisty. Town of Town of Hardisty • There is a transfer station available for the • Municipal sewage • There are no Hardisty Flagstaff Regional use of nearby residents. lagoons capacity issues in Solid Waste • Non-hazardous commercial and industrial regards to the Management wastes can be disposed of directly at the sewage lagoons or Association Class Flagstaff Regional Solid Waste Management the landfill site. 2 Landfill Association Class 2 Landfill located north of the Town of Sedgewick. • Paper and plastics recycling programs are available in the Town of Daysland, the Village of Strome, the Town of Killam, the Town of Sedgewick and the Town of Hardisty. Town of Provost Regional • Accepts construction and demolition wastes • Sewage lagoons • There are no Provost Landfill as well as industrial waste. capacity issues at • Landfill is available to both residents and either waste outside users. management facility. Sources: Davis, Larson, Lawrason, Miller pers. comm. pers. comm., Flagstaff Regional Solid Waste Management Association 2014, MD of Provost No. 52 2014 Saskatchewan Municipal representatives from the Village of Grand Coulee and the Town of Davidson have expressed concern regarding the capacity of liquid waste disposal. A summary of solid and liquid waste handling

Page 5-247

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427 facilities for communities within the Socio-economic LSA in Saskatchewan is presented in Table 5.1.17-15.

TABLE 5.1.17-15

COMMUNITY SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL STUDY AREA IN SASKATCHEWAN

Solid Waste Infrastructure Information on Solid Liquid Waste Sewage Community (Operator) Waste Management Treatment System Capacity Town of Macklin West Yellowhead Waste • There is a transfer station and a • N/A • No issues regarding waste Resource Authority Inc. recycling depot in the Town of management capacity were Macklin. identified. Town of Kerrobert Town of Kerrobert • Non-hazardous household • Sewage lagoons • Municipal representatives Landfill waste and a range of have indicated that the construction and demolition sewage lagoons are wastes are accepted. reaching capacity, however, they anticipate that the issue will be rectified by peak Project construction. • There are no capacity issues with solid waste disposal. Village of Dodsland Village of Dodsland • There is a transfer station in the • N/A • The transfer station for use village. by rate payers only. • No capacity issues with waste disposal anticipated. Town of Rosetown Rosetown Landfill • The Town of Rosetown provides • There is a sewage • No capacity issues in the residential and commercial lagoon for landfill have been identified. waste collection services. wastewater It is expected to be in • Sorted waste can be disposed of treatment. operation for 15 to 20 more directly at the Rosetown Landfill years. for a fee. • The sewage lagoon is reaching capacity but no issues regarding the influx of workers for the Project are anticipated. Village of Milden Waste Management • No solid waste disposal or • Sewage lagoons • No capacity issues with transfer sites in the village. sewage treatment. Waste is trucked to Saskatoon for disposal. Town of Outlook Town of Outlook Landfill • Accepts construction and • Sewage lagoons • Municipal representatives demolition waste as well as have indicated that there some hazardous waste. would be no capacity • In addition to a landfill, there is issues with waste an Eco-Centre located on the management. eastside of town. • The landfill accepts construction and demolition waste as well as some hazardous waste. Village of Loreburn Saskatoon Landfill • Door to door waste and • There is a three-cell • Municipal representatives recycling collection services are sewage lagoon in have indicated that there available in the Village of the village. would be no capacity Loreburn. issues with the waste • Waste is hauled to the management resulting from Saskatoon Landfill. the influx of construction • A waste transfer station in the crews. Village of Loreburn accepts burnable wood, compost materials and metal. • A bin for large waste material is expected to be in place late in 2013 or early 2014.

Page 5-248

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-15 Cont'd

Solid Waste Infrastructure Information on Solid Liquid Waste Sewage Community (Operator) Waste Management Treatment System Capacity Village of Elbow Saskatoon Landfill • Curbside waste and recycling • Wastewater • No capacity issues at the collection is available in the treatment lagoon Village of Elbow’s waste Village of Elbow. transfer site or at the • There is a waste transfer site in wastewater lagoon are operation from May through anticipated by municipal October, where it is then hauled representatives. to the Saskatoon Landfill by • There are no capacity Loraas Disposal. issues are the transfer • Construction waste generally not station. accepted. Town of Davidson Town of Davidson • Accepts residential and • Two-cell lagoon • Current expansion of the Landfill commercial waste from the wastewater landfill is expected to Town of Davidson and the RM of treatment system alleviate any capacity Wilner only. issues. • Residential and commercial • Capacity issues with the curbside waste and recycling wastewater lagoon may be collection is available. anticipated during the • Non-recyclable waste can be spring. disposed of directly at the town’s landfill. • The town’s landfill is located approximately 10 km east of town and in an open pit landfill. Town of Craik N/A • There is a transfer station in the • N/A • N/A town that accepts bagged household waste only where it is then hauled to a landfill by Loraas Disposal. • There is a bin located at the transfer site for larger waste items, however, residents typically take such items as well as construction waste, directly to the City of Moose Jaw Landfill. Village of Bethune City of Regina Landfill • Waste generated in the Village • Sewage lagoon for • There are no capacity of Bethune is taken to the City of wastewater issues anticipated for the Regina Landfill. treatment sewage lagoon during construction of the Project. City of Moose Jaw City of Moose Jaw • The landfill and the Eco-Centre • Sewage treatment • No capacity issues are Landfill and Eco-Centre accept some hazardous wastes plant anticipated at the landfill or and operates a metal recycling the sewage treatment plant program. due to the Project. Town of Lumsden Town of Lumsden • Accepts construction and • N/A • N/A Landfill demolition waste. • On-site recycling is available for some construction materials, including metals. Village of Grand City of Regina Municipal • Residential waste is picked up • Sewage lagoon for • According to municipal Coulee Landfill and disposed of at the City of wastewater representatives, the Regina Landfill by Loraas treatment sewage lagoon is at Disposal on a contract basis. approximately capacity. 1.5 km northwest of the village. City of Regina City of Regina Municipal • The landfill is located northeast • Sewage treatment • No capacity issues are Landfill of the city. plant with upgrades anticipated at the waste • The landfill accepts construction expected to be management facilities due and demolition wastes. complete in 2016. to the Project. • Concrete waste may be diverted to an adjacent concrete plant for use as aggregate.

Page 5-249

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-15 Cont'd

Solid Waste Infrastructure Information on Solid Liquid Waste Sewage Community (Operator) Waste Management Treatment System Capacity City of Regina See above • Local farmers often purchase • See above • See above (cont’d) excess construction materials. • Curbside waste and recycling collection is available in the city in addition to drop-off locations for certain types of recyclables such as metals. • Glass and plastics are processed at a newly opened municipal recycling facility. • Plans for construction a composting facility are underway. Town of White City Loraas Landfill • Accepts construction and • N/A • N/A demolition wastes, however, no hazardous wastes. Town of Balgonie N/A • A waste transfer station is • N/A • N/A located north of town on Highway 364. • Accepted is yard organics and scrap metal only. • Recyclables and other waste are collected by Loraas Disposal. • The Loraas Landfill, located north of the City of Saskatoon off Highway 12, accepts construction and demolition wastes, however, no hazardous wastes. Village of Vibank Loraas Disposal • There exists a transfer station in • Municipal sewage • No capacity issues are the village that does not accept lagoons anticipated. hazardous waste, dirt, liquids or any types of construction and demolition waste. Village of Odessa Ron Fidler • There is one nearby landfill. • Sewage lagoon • No capacity issues with waste management are anticipated. Village of Kendal Village of Kendal • There is one nearby landfill. • Sewage lagoon • No capacity issues are anticipated. Village of Montmartre N/A • There exists a transfer station in • There are two • N/A the village accepting everything sewage lagoons in including concrete depending on the Village of volume. Montmartre. • Loraas Disposal hauls the waste to the City of Regina Landfill and also conducts local recycling and curbside waste collection. Village of Glenavon Village of Glenavon • Landfill accepts residential • There is a sewage • The sewage lagoon Residential Landfill wastes including burnables and lagoon facility in the operates at capacity but the metals. Village of Glenavon. influx of construction • Other household wastes and workers should not be an recycling to hauled to the City of issue. Regina landfill by Loraas Disposal. Town of Kipling Red Coat Waste • The town has a transfer station • There is a recently • No capacity issues are Resource Authority operated by the Red Coast expanded lagoon anticipated at the landfill for Landfill Waste Resource Authority. facility for treating the next several years. • Hauling services are provided by liquid waste. Loraas Disposal.

Page 5-250

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-15 Cont'd

Solid Waste Infrastructure Information on Solid Liquid Waste Sewage Community (Operator) Waste Management Treatment System Capacity Town of Kipling See above • Both the transfer station and the • See above • No capacity issues are (cont’d) Red Coast Waste Authority anticipated for the sewage Landfill accept some lagoon due to an influx of construction, demolition and construction crews. industrial wastes, but no hazardous wastes. Town of Moosomin N/A • There exists a landfill site • N/A • N/A located southwest of the town. • The landfill only accepts local waste and waste from the RM of Moosomin No. 121, the RM of Martin No. 122, the Town of Fleming, and Moosomin Regional Park. Village of Fairlight Red Coat Waste • The village has a transfer station • The village has a • No waste disposal capacity Resource Authority operated by the Red Coast modified sewer issues are anticipated. Landfill Waste Resource Authority. system. • Both the transfer station and the Red Coast Waste Authority Landfill accept some construction, demolition and industrial wastes, but no hazardous wastes. Village of Maryfield Red Coat Waste • The village has a transfer station • Three-cell sewage • No landfill capacity issues Resource Authority operated by the Red Coast lagoon system are anticipated for the next Landfill Waste Resource Authority. several years. • Both the transfer station and the • There are no anticipated Red Coast Waste Authority capacity issues regarding Landfill accept some he sewage lagoon. construction, demolition and industrial wastes, but no hazardous wastes. • Some geotextile waste was accepted at the transfer stations during previous Enbridge projects. Sources: Applin, Audette, Babecy, Brenner, Brown, Cooper, Duck, Edom, Gartner, Hassler, Heisler, Hoffman, Jess, Legault, Losie, Maxemniuk, M. Stronski, Macksymchuk, Memon, Michelman, N. Stronski, Piermantier, Thorn, Yates pers. comm., City of Moose Jaw 2013, City of Regina 2014b Loraas Disposal 2014, SME 2012, Town of Balgonie 2006, Town of Davidson 2014, Town of Kerrobert 2013, Town of Kipling 2014, Town of Lumsden 2007, Town of Moosomin 2014, Town of Outlook 2009, Town of Rosetown 2014, Village of Elbow 2014, Village of Vibank 2014, West Yellowhead Waste Resource Authority Inc. 2014. Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Manitoba Issues regarding the capacity of liquid waste management have been raised by municipal representatives from the City of Morden. A summary of solid and liquid waste handling facilities for communities within the Socio-economic LSA in Manitoba is presented in Table 5.1.17-16.

Page 5-251

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-16

COMMUNITY SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL STUDY AREA IN MANITOBA

Solid Waste Liquid Waste Infrastructure Sewage Treatment Community (Operator) Information on Solid Waste Management System Capacity Town of Virden Virden Class 1 Municipal • Accepts specifically industrial, oilfield, • N/A • N/A and Industrial Waste commercial, construction and demolition Facility waste. • Hazardous waste is accepted. • Municipal waste is also accepted. Town of Souris Municipal Waste • Souris Glenwood Transfer Site and Eco- • N/A • N/A Management Regional Centre located east of the town is open to Landfill residents and ratepayers from the Town of Souris and the RM of Glenwood. • Contractors and commercial operations must dispose of their construction waste at the Municipal Waste Management Regional Landfill located north of the town. City of Brandon Eastview Class 1 Landfill • Located east of the city, the landfill is open to • N/A • According to the City of Brandon residents and municipal commercial waste haulers. representatives, • Clean fill as well as some construction and there are no demolition wastes are accepted. capacity issues • Hazardous wastes or liquid industrial wastes at the Eastview are not accepted. Class 1 Landfill. • Metal recycling is available at the landfill, as well as at Westman Salvage. Village of Wawanesa RM of Oakland Waste • There is a waste transfer station located on • Water treatment • There have been Disposal Facility the east side of the village with a restricted lagoons capacity issues burn pit. at the water treatment lagoons that are expected to be alleviated with upgrades. • It is not anticipated that there will be capacity issues related to waste management as a result of Project construction activities. Village of Glenboro Transfer Station • The village operates waste disposal grounds • N/A • N/A as well as a recycling program. • Solid waste that cannot be recycled, composted or burned is hauled landfill in the Town of Souris. Town of Manitou Solid Waste Area • The Town of Manitou has a waste transfer • Lagoon system • Not aware of any Management Plan site in town. capacity issues. Landfill Site City of Morden Solid Waste Area • Curbside waste and recycling collection is • Lagoon system • Capacity issues Management Plan available to residents in the Town of Manitou for wastewater anticipated as Landfill Site and the City of Morden. treatment lagoon facility is • There are also three waste collection sites in close to full. Manitou, La Rivière and Darlingford. Expansion is • At approximately 20 km away from the City expected within of Morden, waste is hauled to the Solid the next 5 years Waste Area Management Plan Landfill, and is unlikely to which is jointly owned by the cities of Morden be completed and Winkler. before construction period.

Page 5-252

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-16 Cont'd

Solid Waste Liquid Waste Infrastructure Sewage Treatment Community (Operator) Information on Solid Waste Management System Capacity City of Morden See above • See above • See above • Workers staying (cont’d) in the Town of Manitou would not strain the water treatment facilities. City of Winkler Solid Waste Area • A disposal site located northwest of the • Lagoon with • A mechanical Management Plan Town of Manitou in the RM of Pembina also aeration cells wastewater Landfill Site accepts a variety of inert wastes. treatment plant • Hazardous wastes are not accepted. is expected to • There is a scale at the landfill and an begin account can be set up for construction waste construction in disposal. spring 2014. • In addition to the regional landfill site, • Waste commercial businesses have access to management recycling programs at Gateway Resources in capacity issues the City of Winkler. are not anticipated. Town of Gretna Altona/Rhineland/Gretna • There is a transfer station in the Town of • N/A • N/A Landfill Site Gretna for recycling. • Residents often hire contractors to pick up household or commercial waste to take to the landfill in the Town of Altona. • Blue Sky Opportunities hauls recycling waste. Town of Altona Altona/Rhineland/Gretna • N/A • Sewage lagoon • N/A Landfill Site Sources: Biles, Burgess, Epp, Froese, Loewen, Plett, Sawatzky, Trudel, Unrau pers. comm., City of Brandon 2007, City of Morden 2014, City of Winkler 2014, Secure Energy Resources 2014, Town of Altona 2014, Town of Manitou 2014, Town of Souris Manitoba 2009b, Town of Virden 2013, Village of Glenboro 2012 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available

5.1.17.6 Housing Temporary workers are likely to stay in the communities along the replacement pipeline route, with the exception of a work camp location near the Town of Davidson. Community housing information, including the average value of a dwelling, the number of private dwellings by tenure, the average monthly rental shelter costs and vacancy rate has been included for each community along the replacement pipeline route to assess access to private and rental accommodations. Rental vacancy rates, where available, are based on a survey conducted in October 2013 by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) or were indicated by municipal representatives. Available rental vacancy information obtained from the CMHC was limited to select major cities in the Socio-economic LSA and only considered rental dwellings with three or more units, excluding suites in single detached houses. The remaining data were retrieved from Statistics Canada’s 2011 National Household Survey (NHS).

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, the following issues or concerns regarding housing in the Socio-economic LSA were identified:

• Low rental dwelling vacancy has been identified as an issue that is resulting in exacerbated labour shortages. Due to the lack of attainable housing, qualified individuals recruited for specific employment positions are unable to relocate (Applin, Gartner, J. Jones, Larson, Michelman, Piermantier pers. comm.).

Page 5-253

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Alberta Table 5.1.17-17 describes select housing characteristics for communities in the Socio-economic LSA in Alberta. Housing statistics for all of the municipalities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA, including the towns of Sedgewick, Hardisty and Provost, and the MD of Provost No. 52, are unavailable.

TABLE 5.1.17-17

SELECT HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN ALBERTA

Number of Private Number of Private Average Monthly Average Value of Dwellings by Dwellings by Tenure Shelter Costs for Location Dwelling ($)1 Tenure – Owner1 – Renter1 Rented Dwellings ($)1 Vacancy Rate (%)2 Province of Alberta 398,839 1,022,645 357,945 1,079 1.6 Town of Provost N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 Sources: Larson pers. comm., CMHC 2013, Statistics Canada 2013 Notes: 1 Figures retrieved from Statistics Canada 2011 NHS. 2 Vacancy rates based on CMHC October 2013 rental market statistics of privately initiated rental apartment structure of three units and over or were determined as indicated by municipal representatives. N/A indicates that data is not available from the NHS for specific municipalities due to data quality, confidentiality reasons or is not applicable. No data was available for the Town of Sedgewick, Town of Hardisty or MD of Provost No. 52. Saskatchewan Housing characteristics for several communities in the Saskatchewan Socio-economic LSA and RSA are unavailable. These communities are listed at the bottom of Table 5.1.17-18, which describes select housing characteristics for communities in the Socio-economic LSA in Saskatchewan.

TABLE 5.1.17-18

SELECT HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Number of Private Number of Private Average Monthly Shelter Average Value Dwellings by Dwellings by Tenure Costs for Rented Location of Dwelling ($)1 Tenure – Owner1 – Renter1 Dwellings ($)1 Vacancy Rate (%)2 Province of Saskatchewan 267,006 297,235 100,995 837 3.1 Town of Macklin 194,767 410 75 588 0.0 RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 186,637 85 0 N/A N/A RM of Oakdale No. 320 195,579 70 0 N/A N/A RM of Winslow No. 319 273,741 90 0 N/A N/A Village of Dodsland 138,172 75 0 N/A N/A RM of Marriott No. 317 220,240 75 0 N/A N/A Town of Rosetown 163,469 865 225 571 0.0 Village of Milden 118,190 55 20 04 N/A RM of Fertile Valley No. 285 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 Town of Outlook 198,270 760 220 589 N/A Village of Loreburn 126,891 35 0 N/A N/A RM of Craik No. 222 0 25 0 N/A N/A City of Moose Jaw 224,745 9,845 4,740 790 2.7 Town of Lumsden 77,637 215 0 N/A N/A Village of Grand Coulee 344,916 165 0 N/A N/A City of Regina 318,333 55,120 24,495 930 1.8 Town of Balgonie 310,352 530 25 951 N/A RM of Lajord No. 128 233,797 225 0 N/A N/A Village of Glenavon 44,069 125 0 N/A N/A Town of Kipling 111,043 390 95 541 2.0 RM of Silverwood No. 123 162,817 165 0 N/A N/A RM of Wawken No. 93 203,905 245 0 N/A N/A

Page 5-254

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-18 Cont'd

Number of Private Number of Private Average Monthly Shelter Average Value Dwellings by Dwellings by Tenure Costs for Rented Location of Dwelling ($)1 Tenure – Owner1 – Renter1 Dwellings ($)1 Vacancy Rate (%)2 RM of Walpole No. 92 184,247 120 20 249 N/A Town of Moosomin 216,128 790 310 603 N/A RM of Maryfield No. 91 89,609 105 15 04 N/A Village of Maryfield 131,963 145 0 N/A N/A Sources: Dakue, Gartner, J. Jones, Piermantier pers. comm., CMHC 2013, Statistics Canada 2013 Notes: 1 Figures retrieved from Statistics Canada 2011 NHS. 2 Vacancy rates based on CMHC October 2013 rental market statistics of privately initiated rental apartment structure of three units and over or were determined as indicated by municipal representatives. 3 Limited data has resulted in the average monthly shelter costs for rented dwellings being listed as zero dollars for some municipalities. N/A indicates that data is not available from the NHS for specific municipalities due to data quality, confidentiality reasons or is not applicable. No data was available for the RM of Eye Hill No. 382, RM of Progress No. 351, Town of Kerrobert, RM of Mariposa No. 350, RM of Mountain View No. 318, RM of St. Andrews No. 287, RM of Milden No. 286, RM of Fertile Valley No. 285, RM of Loreburn No. 254, Village of Elbow, RM of Wilner No. 253, RM of Huron No. 223, Town of Davidson, Town of Craik, RM of Dufferin No. 190, Village of Bethune, RM of Pense No. 160, RM of Sherwood No. 159, RM of Edenwold No. 158, RM of South Qu’Appelle No. 157, Town of White City, RM of Francis No. 127, Village of Vibank, Village of Odessa, RM of Montmartre No. 126, Village of Kendal, Village of Montmartre, RM of Chester No. 125, RM of Kingsley No. 124 and Village of Fairlight.

Manitoba Housing statistics are unavailable for several communities in the Manitoba Socio-economic LSA and RSA, and are listed at the end of Table 5.1.17-19, which describes select housing characteristics for communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Manitoba.

TABLE 5.1.17-19

SELECT HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS IN MANITOBA

Number of Private Number of Private Average Monthly Average Value of Dwellings by Dwellings by Tenure – Shelter Costs for Location Dwelling ($)1 Tenure – Owner1 Renter1 Rented Dwellings ($)1 Vacancy Rate (%)2 Province of Manitoba 238,861 326,435 127,215 716 2.4 RM of Wallace 151,108 440 50 370 N/A RM of Pipestone 101,876 575 25 350 N/A Town of Virden 178,660 1,035 340 552 N/A RM of Sifton 167,665 305 0 N/A N/A Town of Souris 181,140 715 155 462 N/A RM of Oakland 268,689 355 0 N/A N/A City of Brandon 225,274 12,220 7,115 687 1.9 Village of Wawanesa 157,910 200 40 617 N/A RM of South Cypress 222,707 165 0 N/A N/A Village of Glenboro 145,763 265 50 452 N/A Town of Manitou 119,286 275 75 548 N/A RM of Thompson 140,833 345 25 451 N/A RM of Stanley 219,187 1,965 60 820 N/A City of Morden 188,907 2,480 690 685 < 5.0 City of Winkler 222,511 2,870 1,000 683 1.3 Town of Altona 199,016 1,195 405 645 N/A Sources: R. Jones pers. comm., CMHC 2013, Statistics Canada 2013 Notes: 1 Figures retrieved from Statistics Canada 2011 NHS. 2 Vacancy rates based on CMHC October 2013 rental market statistics of privately initiated rental apartment structure of three units and over or were determined as indicated by municipal representatives. N/A indicates that data is not available from the NHS for specific municipalities due to data quality, confidentiality reasons or is not applicable. No data was available for the RM of Glenwood, RM of Argyle, RM of Lorne, RM of Pembina, RM of Rhineland or Town of Gretna.

Page 5-255

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.1.17.7 Commercial Accommodations and Camping Facilities A potential work camp near the Town of Davidson, Saskatchewan, is planned for use during the construction of the replacement pipeline. This work camp may be situated between two spreads and is needed due to the insufficient number of available commercial accommodations to house workers.

In general, commercial accommodations and camping facilities will be needed to house construction workers during construction. Prior to the commencement of construction, commercial accommodation may also be needed to house personnel conducting planning and pre-construction activities. Accommodation options include hotels, motels, resorts, lodges, campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) parks. The number of accommodations provided in this subsection is approximate and calculated based on the most current information available through desktop research and technical discussions.

For the purpose of this ESA, fully-serviced campsites are defined as having electrical and water hookups, and either sewer hookups at the site, or a dumping station in the campground. A summary of the accommodations for each province is provided in Tables 5.1.17-20 to 5.1.17-22. For more information on commercial accommodations and camping facilities refer to Appendix 11.

In addition to the communities identified in the Socio-economic LSA (Table 5.1.12-1), municipal representatives have also indicated that there are commercial accommodations available for use by workers in the RMs of Walpole No. 92, Wawken No. 93, Silverwood No. 123, Kingsley No. 124, Lorne, Stanley, and Argyle; the Town of Wawota; the villages of Somerset and Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes; and the Hamlet of Swan Lake (Berlin, Bramwell, Gaultier, Kemp, Millard, Saville, Toews pers. comm.).

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, the follow issues or concerns regarding commercial accommodations were identified:

• Concern was raised about the influx of temporary workers staying in the communities near the replacement pipeline. Accommodations, including hotels, motels, other various lodgings and campgrounds in many of the communities along the replacement pipeline route are limited in size and capacity issues may arise, especially during public sporting and cultural events and other construction projects (Audette, Berlin, Epp, Frazer, Gartner, Gaultier, Jess, Kunz, Mario, Michelman, Millard, Olynyk, Piermantier, Pilat, Priestly, Sawatzky, Thevenot, Trudel, Unrau pers. comm.).

TABLE 5.1.17-20

COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL STUDY AREA IN ALBERTA

Hotels/Motel/Lodging Campgrounds and RV Parks Number of Number of Hotels/ Campgrounds Number of Community Motels/Lodging Number of Units and RV Parks Sites Notes Town of 1 8 2 55+ • The hotel typically has no vacancy. Sedgewick • There are roughly 55 serviced sites at the Sedgewick Lake Park Campground. Town of 2 114 1 58 • Hotels are consistently at maximum occupancy. Hardisty • Solitaire Lodge is near the town and offers 16 suites. • A new hotel is currently under construction and is expected to offer 62 rooms ready for 2015. • Approximately 40-50% of the campground is reserved for tourists. Town of 5 450 1 50 • There are three campgrounds in the surrounding Provost area: Amisk Campground, Capt. Ayre Lake Campground and Shorncliffe Lake Campground, as well as one in the town. • Capacity issues are not anticipated. Sources: Larson, Lawrason, L. Martin pers. comm., Town of Hardisty 2013, Town of Sedgewick 2013 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Page 5-256

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-21

COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL STUDY AREA IN SASKATCHEWAN

Hotels/Motel/Lodging Campgrounds and RV Parks Number of Number of Hotels/Motels/ Number of Campgrounds and Number of Community Lodging Units RV Parks Sites Notes Town of Macklin 3 N/A 1 125 • There are three hotels/motels in the Town of Macklin with a fourth, 50-unit hotel under construction. • There is one hotel in the Town of Macklin with 125 fully-serviced sites as well as an innumerable number of unserviced campsites. Town of Kerrobert 2 N/A 1 N/A • Vacancy is typically limited except during spring break-up. • A new, 100-unit hotel has recently been proposed and is expected to be completed by 2015 if approved. Village of Dodsland N/A N/A N/A N/A • N/A Town of Rosetown 3 N/A 1 N/A • There are three motels in the Town of Rosetown. • The Town of Rosetown owns and operates one campground. • Two of the three hotels operate at 90% occupancy as a result of oil field workers and the third at 50-60%. Village of Milden 1 10 1 8 • The village owns and operates a campground with eight fully serviced sites as well as room to offer unserviced sites if needed. Town of Outlook 6 59 1 80 • Vacancy rates depend upon the number of other projects in the area. • Vacancy has been reported to be typically very low at any given time. Village of Loreburn 0 0 0 0 • The commercial accommodations nearest to the Village of Loreburn are in the Town of Outlook. Town of Macklin 3 N/A 1 125 • There are three hotels/motels in the Town of Macklin with a fourth, 50-unit hotel under construction. • There is one hotel in the Town of Macklin with 125 fully-serviced sites as well as an innumerable number of unserviced campsites. Village of Elbow 2 or 3 N/A 3 N/A • Local accommodations fill quickly and it is recommended commercial accommodations be contacted early to reserve rooms. • There is typically no vacancy during the summer months, especially the weekend before August long weekend due to the village’s rodeo. Town of Davidson 2 29 1 30 • The campground is fully serviced. Town of Craik 2 N/A N/A N/A • N/A City of Moose Jaw 22 804 2 N/A • No capacity issues resulting from the Project are anticipated. Village of Bethune 0 0 0 0 • New campground expected to open late 2014 or 2015. Town of Macklin 3 N/A 1 125 • There are three hotels/motels in the Town of Macklin with a fourth, 50-unit hotel under construction. • There is one hotel in the Town of Macklin with 125 fully-serviced sites as well as an innumerable number of unserviced campsites.

Page 5-257

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-21 Cont’d

Hotels/Motel/Lodging Campgrounds and RV Parks Number of Number of Hotels/Motels/ Number of Campgrounds and Number of Community Lodging Units RV Parks Sites Notes Town of Lumsden 2 N/A 1 34 • Of the 34 available campsites, 15 are fully serviced. • Advanced hotel booking recommended at the Lumsden Hotel, as there are only five available rooms. Village of Grand 0 0 0 0 • The closest full-service campground is located Coulee at the Sherwood Forest Country Club approximately 7.0 km north of the Village of Grand Coulee. City of Regina 32 N/A 6 N/A • Vacancy is lowest during the summer. • Sporting tournaments reduce vacancy. Town of White City N/A N/A 3 197 • Of the 197 campsites, 169 are fully serviced. Town of Balgonie 1 9 0 0 • The hotel is typically at capacity. Village of Vibank 0 0 0 0 • Municipal representatives have indicated that there are no commercial accommodations in the Village of Vibank. Town of Macklin 3 N/A 1 125 • There are three hotels/motels in the Town of Macklin with a fourth, 50-unit hotel under construction. • There is one hotel in the Town of Macklin with 125 fully-serviced sites as well as an innumerable number of unserviced campsites. Village of Odessa 0 0 0 0 • Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project. Village of Kendal 0 0 0 0 • N/A Village of 1 4 2 36 • Of the 36 campsites, 20 are fully serviced. Montmartre Village of Glenavon 1 N/A 1 N/A • There is one hotel in the Village of Glenavon but its rooms are currently unavailable. • There are small campgrounds in the Village of Glenavon and the Hamlet of Wolseley. Town of Kipling 1 N/A 1 37 • Of the 37 campsites, 9 are fully serviced. • Accommodations are typically at capacity during the construction season. Town of Moosomin 6 241 2 192 • Of the 192 campsites, 153 are fully serviced. • Accommodations are typically at capacity during the construction season. Village of Fairlight 0 0 0 0 • There are no mentionable issues, concerns or opportunities regarding commercial accommodations in the Village of Fairlight. Village of Maryfield 1 8 1 10 • The hotel is typically at capacity. • Campground sites offer water, electricity, and sewage dumping. Sources: Anonymous, Audette, Babecy, Berlin, Chernykh, Duck, Flannery, Frazer, Gartner, Gould, Heisler, Hoff, Israel, Jacobi, Jess, Kruger, Lachance, M. Stronski, Macksymchuk, Mario, Maxemniuk, Metz, Michelman, N. Stronski, Sing, Thorn pers. comm., Camp Scout.com 2014, Outlook & District Regional Park 2013, Prairie Oasis Tourist Complex 2013, RM of Craik and Town of Craik 2014, Shop Saskatchewan 2014, Tourism Moose Jaw 2014, Tourism Regina 2013, Town of Balgonie 2013, Town of Kipling 2013, Town of Lumsden 2007, Town of Moosomin 2013, Town of White City 2013, Village of Glenavon 2014, Village of Grand Coulee 2014, Village of Montmartre 2014, Village of Odessa 2014, Village of Vibank 2014, Village of Wawanesa 2014, World Web Technologies Inc. 2014 Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

Page 5-258

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-22

COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL STUDY AREA IN MANITOBA

Hotels/Motel/Lodging Campgrounds and RV Parks Number of Number of Hotels/Motels/ Number of Campgrounds Number of Community Lodging Units and RV Parks Sites Notes Town of Virden 4 149 4 453 • Of the 453 campsites, 418 are fully serviced. • Vacancy is often limited due to a steady population of oilfield and construction crews in the area. Town of Souris 6 N/A 1 75 • N/A Town of Virden 4 149 4 453 • Of the 453 campsites, 418 are fully serviced. • Vacancy is often limited due to a steady population of oilfield and construction crews in the area. City of Brandon 23 N/A 3 171 • Twenty of the hotels/motels/lodgings account for 1,413 available rooms. • The City of Brandon typically has an occupancy rate of approximately 55-60% and a vacancy rate of 0% during special events. • Rental property vacancy is currently below 1%. Village of Wawanesa 3 N/A 1 27 • Of the 27 campsites, 16 are fully serviced. Village of Glenboro 2 14 N/A N/A • N/A Town of Manitou 3 51 2 41 • Of the 41 campsites, 22 are fully serviced. • Vacancy is lowest during the summer and winter months and advanced reservations are recommended. City of Morden 7 N/A 3 214 • Of the 214 campsites, 115 are fully serviced. • One of the campgrounds only allows campers over 40 years of age. • Three of the hotels/motels/lodgings account for 121 available rooms. • Vacancy is lowest during the winter months. City of Winkler 3 129 1 54 • Of the 54 campsites, 38 are fully serviced. Town of Gretna 0 0 0 0 • There are no identified commercial accommodations in the Town of Gretna. Town of Altona 2 N/A 1 N/A • N/A Sources: Anonymous, Booker, Boudehane, Loewen, Penner, Priestly, Sawatzky, Thevenot, Trudel, Unrau pers. comm., Brandon Tourism 2014, Bry-Mar RV Park & Campground 2013, City of Morden 2014, City of Winkler 2014, Meadowlark Campground 2014, Morden Motor Inn 2012, Pembina Valley Inn 2012, RM of Pembina 2010, Star Motel Morden 2013, Town of Manitou 2014, Town of Souris Manitoba 2009a, Town of Virden 2013, Turtle Crossing Campground 2014, Virden Central Hotel 2010, World Web Technologies Inc. 2014. Note: N/A indicates that no desktop information was available.

5.1.17.8 Recreational Services The communities in the Socio-economic LSA support a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and services. This subsection describes the recreational services available in the communities considered in the Socio-economic LSA. Recreational services are generally not available in the communities that comprise the Socio-economic RSA, and are therefore not listed in the following sub-sections.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues or concerns were identified regarding recreational amenities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA.

Page 5-259

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Alberta Town of Sedgewick The Sedgewick Recreational Centre has multiple curling rinks, a hockey rink, bowling alley and playschool for indoor recreation (Davis pers. comm., Town of Sedgewick 2013). The Sedgewick Recreational Centre would have no capacity issues if accessed by construction crews while they are staying in the community (Davis pers. comm.). Sedgewick Lake Park Campground offers outdoor recreation opportunities to campers as well as day users (Town of Sedgewick 2013). The Town of Sedgewick also has a nine hole golf course with a driving range (Town of Sedgewick 2013).

Town of Hardisty Hardisty Lake Park and Campground offers campers and day users a large picnic area, playground, beach access and walking trails through the park (Town of Hardisty 2013). Hardisty Lakeview Golf Course is located nearby and the Town of Hardisty has rodeo, baseball, soccer and cross-country skiing facilities (Town of Hardisty 2013). The Town of Hardisty has an ice arena for skating and hockey as well as a curling rink (Town of Hardisty 2013).

Town of Provost The Town of Provost has many recreational facilities including a bowling alley and the Crescent Point Place Regional Activity Centre, which has a swimming pool, a skating and hockey arena, a fitness centre and an indoor walking track (Town of Provost 2014). Fairgrounds, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, outdoor skating rink, rodeo grounds and the Provost & District Golf Club are available for outdoor recreational activities (Miller pers. comm., Town of Provost 2014). The local Agriplex is used for curling in the winter and a farmers’ market in spring and summer (Town of Provost 2014).

Saskatchewan Town of Macklin There are a number of recreation facilities in the Town of Macklin including the Lakeview Golf Course, the Macklin Lake Regional Park and the Macklin and District Communiplex (Town of Macklin 2014). The Macklin and District Communiplex includes a curling facility, hockey rink and meeting spaces (Town of Macklin 2014). The Macklin Lake Regional Park features five official-sized ball diamonds and is host to the World Bunnock Championship (Gartner pers. comm., Town of Macklin 2014). The Lakeview Golf Course is located 0.4 km south of the Town of Macklin in the Macklin Lake Regional Park (Town of Macklin 2014).

Municipal representatives indicated the recreational amenities in the Town are relatively new, experience no capacity issues and include a private gym and an outdoor swimming pool (Gartner pers. comm.).

Town of Kerrobert The Town of Kerrobert has many recreational facilities including a curling rink, Memorial Arena, swimming pool and fairground that features baseball diamonds and a motocross track (Town of Kerrobert 2013). The Kerrobert Golf Club is located in the Town of Kerrobert and features nine professionally-designed holes (Town of Kerrobert 2013). The Kerrobert Golf Course is located near SKP 353.7 (NE 15-34-23-3), however, the golf course has been avoided to minimize direct disturbance. Near the town, fishing is accessible at the Kerrobert and District Wildlife Federation reservoir. All amenities are available to construction workers and no capacity issues are anticipated (Applin pers. comm.).

Village of Dodsland Desktop information was not available for the Village of Dodsland. Municipal representatives were not available for participating in a socio-economic technical discussion.

Town of Rosetown There are many sports and recreation facilities in the Town of Rosetown. Recreation facilities include an aquatic leisure centre, three golf courses and the Ball & Pin House, which features bowling, pool, darts and shuffleboard (Town of Rosetown 2014). The Rosetown Fitness Centre is located in the Town of

Page 5-260

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Rosetown’s Civic Centre and includes a variety of cardio machines and free weights (Town of Rosetown 2014). In addition, there is an arena, curling rink and sports grounds, which include ball diamonds, soccer pitches, a beach volleyball court and a riding area (Town of Rosetown 2014). No capacity issues of these services during the Project are anticipated (Piermantier pers. comm.).

Village of Milden Currently for sale, the Milden Golf Course is a nine hole course that features a newly renovated clubhouse (Village of Milden 2013).

Town of Outlook The Town of Outlook is home to the Outlook & District Regional Park with its campground, golf course, outdoor heated swimming pool, paddling pool and the nearby SKYTRAIL Pedestrian Bridge (Outlook & District Regional Park 2013, Town of Outlook 2009). The Jim Kook Recreation Complex offers ice skating, curling, bowling, archery, dance and baseball facilities for indoor and outdoor recreation enthusiasts (Michelman, Town of Outlook 2009).

Village of Loreburn Residents of the Village of Loreburn have access an ice rink with artificial ice with the purchase of a year-round pass as well as access to sports fields. Neither of these recreational facilities would experience capacity issues due to the influx of construction workers (M. Stronski pers. comm.).

Village of Elbow The Village of Elbow has a number of recreation facilities including the Elbow Family Fitness Centre, the Elbow Arena, the Loreburn Arena, ball diamonds and a golf club (Village of Elbow 2014). According to municipal representatives, the fitness centre does not have any capacity issues (Jess pers. comm.).

Town of Davidson The Davidson Communiplex features an Olympic-sized arena, curling rink and a variety of meeting rooms (Town of Davidson 2014). In addition, there is a swimming pool and golf course in the Town of Davidson (Town of Davidson 2014).

Town of Craik The Craik Memorial Rink includes both a full-size rink and a three-sheet curling facility. In addition, the Town of Craik features several parks, playgrounds, a golf course and the Craik Fair Grounds, which includes ball diamonds (RM of Craik and Town of Craik 2014). There is a small fitness centre in the Town of Davidson for which monthly passes are sold (Edom pers. comm.).

City of Moose Jaw The City of Moose Jaw offers both indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and services. The Kinsmen Sportsplex and the Phyllis Dewar Outdoor Pool provide opportunities for swimming, while the Moose Jaw Ford Curling Centre has ice for league and recreational curling (City of Moose Jaw 2013). The City of Moose Jaw has 15 city-run outdoor rinks and skating pads, and 3 indoor ice surfaces (City of Moose Jaw 2013). Local parks include sports fields for baseball, football and soccer, and multiple ornamental and natural parks in the downtown area (City of Moose Jaw 2013). The City of Moose Jaw has a skateboard park, tennis courts, playgrounds and multiple golf courses for outdoor recreational use (City of Moose Jaw 2013). Fitness centres offer facilities and programs for all ages (City of Moose Jaw 2013).

Village of Bethune The Village of Bethune features an arena, the Bethune and District Curling Club and a number of ball diamonds (Village of Bethune 2014). According to municipal representatives, the local community centre doubles as the school gymnasium and none of the local facilities would have capacity issues with additional users (Audette pers. comm.).

Page 5-261

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Town of Lumsden There are several parks in the Town of Lumsden that offer playgrounds, basketball courts, baseball diamonds, a campground and access to the Trans Canada Trail for hiking, walking, cycling and snowshoeing (Town of Lumsden 2007). Fitness facilities provide opportunities for weight training, karate, yoga, rhythmic gymnastics, dancing and swimming (Town of Lumsden 2007). The Qu’Appelle River and Wascana Creek offer canoeing and kayaking access (Town of Lumsden 2007).

Village of Grand Coulee According to municipal representatives, there are no recreational facilities in the Village of Grand Coulee (Duck pers. comm.).

City of Regina The City of Regina has three recreation centres with both aquatic and fitness facilities (City of Regina 2010). It also has five city-operated outdoor pools for seasonal recreational opportunities (City of Regina 2010). There are 17 indoor ice surfaces in the vicinity of the City of Regina and 68 outdoor skating rinks for winter recreation (City of Regina 2010). There are two skateboarding parks in the City of Regina and various playgrounds, walking paths, water parks and green spaces for outdoor recreation (City of Regina 2010). Various sports fields and courts are available in the City of Regina (2010). In addition, the City of Regina features a number of private and public golf courses (City of Regina 2010). According to municipal representatives, recreational facilities in the City of Regina do not have any capacity issues, however, sports tournaments held at the facilities contribute to low hotel vacancy rates (Mario pers. comm.).

Town of White City The Town of White City has a large community centre that offers dance and exercise classes (Town of White City 2014). Parks, playgrounds, a ball park, tennis courts, an outdoor skating rink, a skateboard/bicycle park and a nearby golf course offer outdoor recreation opportunities (Town of White City 2014).

Town of Balgonie The Town of Balgonie is home to the Stardome hockey arena, an outdoor skating rink, a skateboard park, the Balgonie Curling Club, multiple baseball diamonds and an outdoor pool (Town of Balgonie 2006).

Village of Vibank The Village of Vibank Rink is open from October to March, and has artificial ice for skating and hockey (Village of Vibank 2014). The Village of Vibank is currently developing new sports programs to add to their hockey and judo programs (Village of Vibank 2014). There are also several athletic clubs in the Village including soccer, baseball and dance (Heisler pers. comm.).

Village of Odessa There are no recreational amenities in the Village of Odessa. Municipal representatives have stated that the municipality has no comments, issues or concerns regarding the Project (Gould pers. comm.).

Village of Kendal No recreational amenities or issues with capacity were identified during the socio-economic technical discussion with municipal representatives (Hoffman pers. comm.).

Village of Montmartre The Village of Montmartre offers outdoor recreation opportunities such as beach volleyball, disc golfing, baseball, soccer, organized running, skating and golfing (Village of Montmartre 2014). Indoor recreation, such as curling, dancing and hockey, is also offered (Village of Montmartre 2014).

Page 5-262

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Village of Glenavon The Village of Glenavon has an artificial ice curling rink, an indoor ice rink for skating and hockey, and a fitness centre that experiences no capacity issues (Village of Glenavon 2014, Hoff pers. comm.). A golf driving range, a playground and campground offer outdoor recreational opportunities (Village of Glenavon 2014).

Town of Kipling The Kipling School Gym and the Friendship Centre offer spaces for indoor fitness and recreation for adults and children in the Town of Kipling (Town of Kipling 2014). The Town of Kipling has a hockey arena, a curling club, a golf course, sports fields, a campground and an outdoor, seasonal swimming pool (Town of Kipling 2014).

Town of Moosomin The Town of Moosomin has a seasonal ice arena for skating and hockey, an indoor sports facility, a bowling alley, a private gym and a curling club for indoor recreation (Listrom pers. comm., Town of Moosomin 2014). The private gym may experience capacity issues if used heavily by workers from other projects such as from the mining operations in the area (Listrom pers. comm.). Outdoor recreation opportunities include sports fields, a golf club, an outdoor arena and an outdoor swimming pool (Town of Moosomin 2014).

Village of Fairlight The Village of Fairlight offers occasional drop in recreational activities. There are no capacity issues anticipated by municipal representatives regarding recreational amenities (Metz pers. comm.).

Village of Maryfield The Town of Maryfield offers indoor recreation opportunities at the Maryfield Fitness Centre, which has gym equipment (Village of Maryfield 2014). There are also two golf courses in the area, one north of the Village of Maryfield between the Village and the Town of Kipling, and one in the Town of Virden, Manitoba (Macksymchuk pers. comm.). An arena with both natural and artificial ice is also accessible by the public (Frazer pers. comm.)

Manitoba Town of Virden The Town of Virden has a new recreation facility with an ice arena, a fitness facility, a walking/running track, an outdoor seasonal pool and sports fields (Town of Virden 2013). In addition, there are a number of other recreation facilities in the Town of Virden such as the Virden Curling Club, the Virden Wellview Golf Course and outdoor tennis courts (Town of Virden 2013).

Town of Souris The Town of Souris has a hockey arena, a curling rink and a community hall in the Souris Glenwood Memorial Arena (Town of Souris Manitoba 2009a). There is an outdoor pool and water park, and a golf course for outdoor recreation (Town of Souris Manitoba 2009a).

City of Brandon The City of Brandon has various playgrounds, sports fields, spray parks, swimming pools and paddling pools for outdoor recreation (City of Brandon 2014a, Trudel pers. comm.). There are 64 parks throughout the city (Trudel pers. comm.). There is an outdoor skating area for winter use, a golf course for multi- season play and a skateboard park (City of Brandon 2014a). The City of Brandon’s Community Sportsplex has swimming, skating and racquetball to offer and the YMCA recently completed its redevelopment (City of Brandon 2014b, Trudel pers. comm.). Municipal representatives indicate that there are no anticipated capacity issues for these facilities during construction of the Project (Trudel pers. comm.).

Page 5-263

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Village of Wawanesa The Village of Wawanesa has a recreation centre, a swimming pool and sports fields for indoor and outdoor recreational activities (Village of Wawanesa 2014).

Village of Glenboro Recreational activities in the Village of Glenboro can be found at the Glenboro Golf and Country Club and the Glenboro Arena and Curling Club (Village of Glenboro 2012). In addition to its eight sheets of ice, the Glenboro Arena and Curling Club includes five baseball diamonds, a harness racing track and two playgrounds (Village of Glenboro 2012).

Town of Manitou The Town of Manitou has a curling club, a dance studio, a hockey and skating arena, a Taekwondo and fitness facility, a golf course and sports fields for indoor and outdoor recreation (Town of Manitou 2014). According to municipal representatives, for larger fitness centres and other facilities, those in the Town of Manitou usually travel to the cities of Morden and Winkler (Unrau pers. comm.).

City of Morden The City of Morden is home to the Minnewasta Golf & Country Club and the Morden Curling Club (City of Morden 2014). Other outdoor recreation activities include digging for fossils, geo caching, zip lining, skateboarding, cycling, baseball, soccer and visiting the all-season Lake Minnewasta Recreation Area (City of Morden 2014). The City of Morden has eight community parks with playgrounds, picnic areas, walking paths, a water park, beach volleyball courts and green spaces (City of Morden 2014). The Access Event Centre is home to two artificial ice surfaces, a gymnastics facility and a playroom (City of Morden 2014).

City of Winkler The Winkler Recreation Complex houses the City of Winkler’s indoor hockey arena where hockey, figure skating and recreational skating are offered (City of Winkler 2014). The City of Winkler also offers curling at the Winkler Curling Club and outdoor swimming at the Winkler Aquatic Centre (City of Winkler 2014). Other outdoor recreation opportunities include baseball, soccer, tennis, tobogganing, walking and cycling (City of Winkler 2014). There are neighbourhood parks with playgrounds and picnic areas and a campground in the City of Winkler (2014). The Winkler Centennial Golf Course, a semi-private facility located in the City of Winkler, welcomes visitors (Winkler Centennial Golf Course 2014).

Town of Gretna The Town of Gretna is home to the Oakview nine hole golf course and the Gretna Arena, which has an artificial ice surface for skating and hockey in the winter (Town of Gretna 2012).

Town of Altona No desktop information was available and no recreational amenities were identified during socio-economic technical discussions.

5.1.17.9 Educational Services A range of educational facilities are located in the Socio-economic LSA, including elementary and secondary schools as well as higher education learning centres that provide training for skilled trades. Information about educational services in Aboriginal groups in the Socio-economic LSA is provided for both grade school level and post-secondary education and training in Appendix 11 to provide further baseline context employment and educational attainment. Further information on training and education opportunities is provided in Appendix 11. The need for expanded educational services is not anticipated as a result of the construction and operations of the Project. Information about educational services in all three provinces is summarized in Tables 5.1.17-23 and 5.1.17-24. For more information on educational services, refer to Appendix 11.

Page 5-264

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-23

POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL STUDY AREA

Campus Post-Secondary Institution Locations Areas of Study Offered ALBERTA N/A N/A N/A SASKATCHEWAN University of Regina City of Regina • University arts and sciences • Applied business • Trades • Oil and gas industry-related programs Saskatchewan Institute of Applied City of Regina • University arts and sciences Science and Technology (SIAST) City of Moose Jaw • Applied business • Trades • Oil and gas industry-related programs Southeast Regional College Town of • Trades Moosomin MANITOBA Brandon University City of Brandon • Various university degree programs Assiniboine Community College City of Brandon • Business City of Dauphin • Trades Manitoba Emergency Services College City of Brandon • Emergency medical and response training Red River College City of Winkler • Business • Trades • Oil and gas industry-specific training Sources: Trudel pers. comm., Assiniboine Community College 2014, Brandon University 2014, Red River College 2014, SIAST 2014, Southeast Regional College 2010, University of Regina 2014

TABLE 5.1.17-24

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION FACILITIES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL STUDY AREA

School Division Community Schools ALBERTA Battle River School Division No. 31 Town of Hardisty 1-9 Town of Sedgewick K-12 Buffalo Trail Public Schools Town of Provost K-12 SASKATCHEWAN Living Sky School Division No. 202 Town of Macklin K-12 Town of Kerrobert K-12 Prairie South School Division and Holy Trinity Town of Craik K-12 Catholic School Board City of Moose Jaw PreK-12 Prairie Valley School Division Town of Pense K-8 Town of Lumsden PreK-12 Town of Balgonie K-8 Village of Bethune K-8 Town of Kipling K-12 Village of Vibank K-12 Town of White City K-6 Village of Montmartre K-12 Regina School Division No. 4 and Regina City of Regina PreK-12 Catholic School Division South East Cornerstone Public School Division Town of Moosomin PreK-12 No. 209 Village of Maryfield K-12 Town of Wawota K-12

Page 5-265

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.17-24 Cont’d

School Division Community Schools MANITOBA Fort La Bosse School Division Town of Virden K-12 Southwest Horizon School Division Town of Souris K-12 Village of Wawanesa K-12 Brandon School Division City of Brandon PreK-12 Prairie Spirit School Division Town of Manitou PreK-12 Village of Glenboro 1-12 Garden Valley School Division City of Winkler K-12 Western School Division City of Morden K-12 Prairie Rose School Division Town of Carman K-12 Border Land School Division Town of Gretna K-8 Town of Altona K-12 Sources: Davis pers. comm., Battle River School Division 2014, Brandon School Division 2012, Buffalo Trail Public Schools 2010, Fort La Bosse School Division 2014, Garden Valley School Division 2013, Holy Trinity Catholic School Division 2014, Living Sky School Division 2014, Prairie Rose School Division 2014, Prairie South School Division 2014, Prairie Valley School Division 2014, South East Cornerstone Public School Division 2010, Southwest Horizon School Division 2014

5.1.18 Navigation and Navigation Safety This subsection summarizes general patterns and potential interactions of the construction and operation of the replacement pipeline in the HORU LSA and RSA. The spatial boundaries pertaining to navigation and navigation safety are described under the HORU LSA and RSA in Section 5.1.12 and presented on Figures 5.1.12-1 to 5.1.12-3. A detailed discussion regarding the existing condition of navigation and navigation safety is provided in Appendix 11. The potential Project-related effects and key mitigation pertaining to navigation and navigation safety are discussed in Section 6.2.18.

According to the Navigable Waters Protection Program Application Guide navigable water is defined as:

“…any body of water capable of being navigated by floating vessels of any description for the purpose of transportation, commerce or recreation. This includes both inland and coastal waters.” (Transport Canada 2010a).

It should be noted that the Navigable Water Protection Act (NWPA) has been replaced by the Navigation Protection Act (NPA). The NPA came into force on April 1, 2014. The NPA covers a select number of navigable scheduled waterways across Canada (i.e., 162 waterways). However, navigation and navigation safety is regulated by the NEB for NEB-regulated projects, as per the memorandum of understanding between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the NEB, and not by Transport Canada. The NEB does not restrict their consideration of the effects of an NEB-regulated project on navigation and navigation safety to the schedule of navigable waters in the NPA. Therefore, the NEB will continue to look at the common law right to navigate all navigable waterbodies crossed by NEB-regulated projects. The NEB released an updated Filing Manual in August 2013 that included filing requirements for navigation and navigation safety. Proposed mitigation for navigation and navigation safety for the replacement pipeline route are provided in Section 6.2.18 and Appendix 1A.

The navigability criteria outlined in the Minor Waters User Guide (Transport Canada 2010b) and the Minor Works and Waters Ministerial Order (Government of Canada 2009) were used as the basis for determining whether each body of water crossed by the replacement pipeline could be classed as a minor navigable water and, therefore, unlikely to be navigable. In addition to the Minor Works and Waters Ministerial Order criteria, comments on the navigability of each watercourse are provided based on the open water aquatic assessments. Appendix 7 provides detail on the open water aquatic habitat assessment methods.

Watercourse, wetland and other fish-bearing waterbodies crossed were placed into three categories: non- navigable; navigable and potentially navigable. Definitions for each category are provided in Section Appendix 11.

Page 5-266

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Information on the proposed watercourse and wetland crossings, including the respective crossing methodology for each crossing and contingency plans for HDD where land access was available, is provided in Appendix 7. Ancillary Project components may include temporary clear span bridges, snowfills or ice bridges, which will be used, where needed, as vehicle and equipment crossings at watercourses and other fish-bearing waterbodies during pipeline construction (Appendix 7).

The replacement pipeline route crosses watercourses 49 times, including fish-bearing drainages. These counts do not include crossings where land access was not obtained and information needs to be collected to screen them against the minor waters criteria. No designated Canadian Heritage Rivers are crossed by the replacement pipeline route, however, the South Saskatchewan River, crossed at SKP 518.2, is nominated to be a Canadian Heritage River (Canadian Heritage Rivers System 2011).

There are a total of 14 watercourses and one lake that are crossed (including two crossings of Eagle Creek and three crossings of Oak Creek) that have been deemed navigable. Navigable watercourses crossed by the replacement pipeline route that have known traditional and non-traditional human uses, that were identified during desktop research and stakeholder engagement or were previously determined by Transport Canada to be navigable are listed in Appendix 11. Many of the smaller watercourses and fish-bearing drainages that could not be screened out based on the minor navigable waters criteria do not have defined bed and banks, have navigation obstructions present (e.g., culverts, vegetation, dry sections, etc.) and likely only have sufficient water present in the spring and early-summer. It is anticipated that any navigation would be impeded by the conditions at these watercourses and any commercial and non-commercial activities would be limited. No additional navigable or potentially navigable watercourses or wetlands were identified during Aboriginal engagement. See Section 3.0 for information regarding consultation efforts. During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues related to the crossing of navigable waterbodies or navigation safety were identified.

Approximately 24 of the watercourse crossings are determined to occur on potentially navigable watercourses based on the minor navigable waters criteria. No wetlands were confirmed to be navigable, however, five wetlands were determined to be potentially navigable (see Appendix 11 for wetland categorization criteria). Potentially navigable watercourses and their likely uses as well as potentially navigable wetlands are listed in Appendix 11. Watercourse crossing information, including data summaries and open water photos, is provided in Appendix 7 and detailed information regarding crossed wetlands in each province is provided in Appendix 8. Additional information on navigation and navigation safety is provided in Appendix 11.

Alberta In Alberta, the replacement pipeline route crosses one watercourse and one fish-bearing drainage, both of which are determined to be navigable based on the minor navigable waters criteria. There are also two nonfish-bearing drainages that are crossed and not considered to be navigable. There are approximately 113 wetlands crossed in Alberta, none of which are Class V and potentially navigable. For more information on navigation and navigation safety in Alberta, refer to Appendix 11.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues related to the crossing of navigable waters or navigation safety were identified by stakeholders or Aboriginal groups. Furthermore, no additional navigable or potentially navigable waterbodies or active navigation activities were identified. Consideration will be given to any navigable or potentially navigable waterbodies that are identified as a result of Enbridge’s on-going consultation program, as described in Section 1.4.

Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, the replacement pipeline route crosses 22 watercourses and 9 fish-bearing drainages (6 are deemed navigable and 18 are determined to be potentially navigable). An additional 21 watercourse crossings have not been screened against the minor waters criteria since land access was not available to collect the necessary information. Wascana Creek is crossed by the replacement pipeline route near the City of Regina. It is navigable and fish-bearing, however, it is not widely accessed for recreational use. Municipal representatives stated that most people access the lakes north of the City of Regina for recreational boating (MacMillan pers. comm.). Near the Town of Rosetown, Eagle Creek is crossed by the replacement pipeline route twice at approximately SKP 405.6 and SKP 438.2. Municipal

Page 5-267

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

representatives from the Town of Rosetown indicate that it is a non-navigable watercourse in the vicinity of the town, however, municipal representatives from the RM of Mountain View No. 318 have indicated that there are some people who use the waterway strictly for kayaking or canoeing in the spring when the water table is high after snowmelt (Barna, Deobald, Piermantier pers. comm.). Municipal representatives from the Village of Milden confirmed that McDonald Creek is not a navigable waterway (Maxemniuk pers. comm.).

The largest and most numerable wetland crossings by the replacement pipeline route are located in Saskatchewan. There are approximately 944 wetlands crossed in Saskatchewan, five of which are Class V and potentially navigable. Potentially navigable wetlands are provided in Appendix D of Appendix 11. For more information on navigation and navigation safety in Saskatchewan, refer to Appendix 11.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues related to the crossing of navigable waters or navigation safety were identified by stakeholders or Aboriginal groups. Furthermore, no additional navigable or potentially navigable waterbodies or active navigation activities were identified. Consideration will be given to any navigable or potentially navigable waterbodies that are identified as a result of Enbridge’s on-going consultation program, as described in Section 1.4.

Manitoba In Manitoba, the replacement pipeline route crosses 13 watercourses and 3 fish-bearing drainages (8 are deemed navigable and 6 are determined to be potentially navigable). There are also 20 nonfish-bearing drainages that are crossed which were not considered navigable. An additional 12 potential watercourse crossings have not been screened against the minor waters criteria since land access was not available to collect the necessary information. There are approximately 196 wetlands crossed in Manitoba, none of which are Class V and potentially navigable. For more information on navigation and navigation safety in Manitoba, refer to Appendix 11.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, no issues related to the crossing of navigable waters or navigation safety were identified by stakeholders or Aboriginal groups. Furthermore, no additional navigable or potentially navigable waterbodies or active navigation activities were identified. Consideration will be given to any navigable or potentially navigable waterbodies that are identified as a result of Enbridge’s on-going consultation program, as described in Section 1.4.

5.1.19 Employment and Economy This subsection summarizes general patterns and potential interactions of the construction and operations of the Project in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA (Figures 5.1.15-1 to 5.1.15-3). A detailed discussion regarding the existing condition of employment and economy is provided in Appendix 11. The potential Project-related effects and key mitigation pertaining to employment and economy are discussed in Section 6.2.19.

The spatial boundaries considered for employment and economy are the Socio-economic LSA and RSA spatial boundaries, defined in Section 5.1.15 and provided on Figures 5.1.15-1 to 5.1.15-3. In addition, the economic effects analysis provided by Navigant Economics (see Section 5.1.19.2) includes provincial and national spatial boundaries.

5.1.19.1 Participation of Aboriginal Businesses and Employment Enbridge’s Aboriginal and Native American Policy states that Enbridge recognizes the history, uniqueness and diversity of Aboriginal and Native American peoples, and commits to developing and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships based on respect and trust with Aboriginal peoples in proximity to its pipelines and operations (Enbridge 2009b, 2014b). Through this commitment, Enbridge and its subsidiaries, employees and contractors work diligently to identify and secure opportunities for the participation of Aboriginal businesses and employment in the projects it manages (Enbridge 2009). For more information on the policy and the commitments Enbridge has made to encourage the participation of Aboriginal businesses and employment, see Appendix 11.

Page 5-268

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.1.19.2 Economic Effects Analysis The economic effects analysis (e.g., contribution to gross domestic product, labour income, federal and provincial taxes) is provided in Appendix 11. The analysis was performed by Navigant Economics using Statistics Canada’s approach to economic impact modelling. Details of the methodology is provided in Appendix 11. The analysis was used to estimate total generated provincial and federal tax revenues within each province (Table 5.1.19-1) as well as estimate total capital output-input expenditures (Table 5.1.19-2). Provincial and federal tax revenues generated from the operations of the replacement pipeline route were not calculated, as no new revenue is anticipated to be generated since the Project involves the replacement of the existing Line 3 pipeline.

TABLE 5.1.19-1

ESTIMATED TOTAL PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL TAX REVENUES BY PROVINCE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Construction Phase over 3 Years Construction Phase Annual Province (Millions of Canadian Dollars) (Millions of Canadian Dollars) British Columbia 5.7 1.1 Alberta 216.5 43.3 Saskatchewan 183.9 36.8 Manitoba 108.2 21.6 Total Provincial and Federal Tax 514.3 102.9 Revenues Note: Refer to Appendix D of Appendix 11 for the economic effects analysis

TABLE 5.1.19-2

ESTIMATED TOTAL CANADIAN INPUT-OUTPUT EXPENDITURES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Direct Project Expenditures Location (Millions of Canadian Dollars) Percentage British Columbia 40 0.9 Alberta 1,520.0 35.1 Saskatchewan 2,076.0 48.0 Manitoba 692.0 16.0 Canada 4,328 100.0

Source: Enbridge 2014c

5.1.19.3 Workforce Requirements Enbridge is committed to providing economic opportunities for Aboriginal groups in proximity to the replacement pipeline route (Enbridge 2009b). Where feasible, these groups will be given an opportunity to provide labour, material, equipment and services to the Project.

While pipeline construction requires both skilled and unskilled labour, it is typically conducted over a short time period. Pending regulatory approval, construction activities such as topsoil and grading will begin in Q2 2016 and continue until topsoil replacement and final clean-up in December 2017. During the summer of 2018, some scattered amounts of warranty and remedial work will take place. The construction of the replacement pipeline will entail three spreads of workers. The peak construction workforce is estimated to be approximately 650 workers per spread. In addition to these personnel, Enbridge management, inspection, non-destructive examination, survey, safety and environment staff will total approximately 300 people (100 per spread). The warranty and remedial work in summer 2018 will need approximately 500 workers in total. There will be no new permanent full-time positions as a result of the replacement pipeline.

Page 5-269

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

The anticipated construction workforce at each individual station is 15 to 30, however, there may be up to 50 people during peak construction periods. The skills of the anticipated workforce will range from heavy equipment operators, pipe welders, electricians, skilled labourers and mechanics to field office support personnel. Enbridge does not anticipate that any new long-term operations jobs will be created by the Project. No new maintenance bases will be established.

Further information regarding the expected timing of construction and decommissioning for the replacement pipeline is provided in Appendix 11.

5.1.19.4 Contracting Opportunities Contracts will be awarded and conducted under the direction of the prime pipeline contractor. All successful subcontractors will need to meet Enbridge’s safety and quality requirements and be cost competitive.

In the Aboriginal and Native American Policy, Enbridge has committed to providing opportunities for Aboriginal groups and businesses to participate in the replacement pipeline through contract and employment opportunities when possible and for the purposes of this Project, the policy has been translated into relevant Aboriginal languages (Enbridge 2009b). Furthermore, Enbridge will offer sole-sourced contract opportunities to qualified Aboriginal suppliers and contractors, where appropriate, and encourage joint venture opportunities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal businesses when such joint ventures build capacity and support mutual business interests (Enbridge 2009b, 2014b). This commitment also extends to successful contractors and subcontractors.

Enbridge commits to using local contractors, when available, to fill these roles as much as possible. The typical types of subcontracting opportunities related to pipeline construction are listed below:

• fuel providers;

• hydrovac services;

• pipe mills and fabrication shops;

• office trailers, site vehicles and office supplies;

• catering services;

• toilet facility services;

• janitorial and cleaning;

• water trucks;

• farm equipment;

• straw bales and seed;

• tackifier;

• mulching, gravel, sand and lumber;

• restaurants;

• lodging; and

• local services and amenities.

In addition, opportunities for local business include restaurants, lodging, and local services and amenities.

Page 5-270

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.1.19.5 Employment Opportunities Employment opportunities associated with the Project will be directed through the prime contractor(s). Enbridge will provide the prime contractor(s) with a list of locations where local businesses are available to provide services. Enbridge is committed to working with Aboriginal groups and businesses to provide opportunities to participate in the construction of the replacement pipeline. This includes access to employment opportunities. The successful contractor(s) are expected to support Enbridge’s commitment to Aboriginal and Native Peoples.

Employment associated with the construction of the replacement pipeline requires some level of educational or trades designation, however, construction experience will also be considered when selecting the workforce.

Full scale training programs related to the construction of the Project have not been developed at the time writing, however, there is potential for such opportunities.

5.1.19.6 Local and Regional Plans Many communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA boundaries have municipal or community development and land use plans. These plans largely discuss socio-economic objectives, which are directed towards creating a strong and diversified economic base while protecting the quality of life of residents. Summaries of the available development and land use plans that discuss economic development objectives are provided in Appendix 11.

5.1.19.7 Local Employment Development Plans No formal local employment development plans were identified for the communities included in the Socio- economic LSA and RSA.

At this time, there are no plans to engage in a full scale training program related to the construction of the replacement pipeline, however, there is potential to discuss economic opportunities, where feasible.

Enbridge is not aware of any formal local employment development plans in place for the Aboriginal groups engaged for the replacement pipeline. Enbridge, with the co-operation of its selected contractor(s), will be seeking to maximize participation from local Aboriginal groups in employment opportunities.

5.1.19.8 Existing Local and Regional Economic Setting In this subsection, an overview of the key economic activity in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA, including key business sectors, industries and economic development goals, is provided per province. Refer to Appendix 11 for a full discussion of economic activity for each municipality and Aboriginal group in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA.

During socio-economic technical discussions and broader Project engagement, the following issues and concerns regarding employment and economy have been identified.

• Some municipal representatives have expressed concern that existing labour shortages in the regions surrounding the replacement pipeline, especially skilled labour shortages, would be exacerbated by the temporary employment opportunities that may arise from the construction of the replacement pipeline construction (Applin, Babecy, Biles, Bramwell, Brenner, Burgess, Dakue, Davis, Deobald, Edom, Epp, Gartner, Gintaut, Greggor, Gudnason, Hoff, J. Jones, Jess, Kemp, Kunz, Lawrason, Listrom, MacDonald, Macksymchuk, Macomber, Meadows, Millard, Piermantier, Pilat, Thevenot, Thorn, Toews, Trudel, Wolfe pers. comm.).

• Project activities may result in increased contract procurement and income for local businesses in the areas along the replacement pipeline route. This has been true for past projects that have gone through the same communities as planned for the Project (Frazer, Jess, Plett pers. comm.).

Page 5-271

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

• Concern was raised about the location of the replacement pipeline route and tax revenues. Select communities noted that routing the replacement pipeline outside of certain municipal boundaries would result in lost tax revenue for municipalities where the existing Line 3 pipeline crossed (Dakue pers. comm.).

Alberta The economic base of the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Alberta consists of the energy and agricultural industries. Other key sectors include finance and real estate, retail and wholesale, and construction and manufacturing. Alberta has the highest labour force participation and the highest employment rate among the Canadian provinces (Government of Alberta 2014d). Labour force activity and education attained for the communities in the Alberta Socio-economic LSA and RSA were not available due to lack of data or confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2013). Concerns regarding labour shortages in the communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA have been raised, primarily in the service industry and skilled trades. Specific information about the existing economic setting in each of the non-Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups in the Socio-economic RSA is provided in Appendix 11.

Alberta’s workforce population (defined as those aged 15 years and older) totalled 2,888,735 people in 2011 (Statistics Canada 2013). An estimated 73.2% of this population participated in the labour force, and approximately 5.8% of the labour force was unemployed (Statistics Canada 2013). Communities located in the Alberta Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information was unavailable due to lack of data or for confidentiality reasons have been excluded from Tables 5.19-3 through 5.19-8.

Saskatchewan The economic base of the Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Saskatchewan consists of resource production, with major commodities including grains, livestock, oil and gas, potash, uranium and wood. Other sectors, such as business services and the manufacturing industry primarily serve those companies involved in resource production (Government of Saskatchewan 2014). Saskatchewan is currently the second largest producer of oil in Canada, and accounts for roughly 20% of Canada’s production (Government of Saskatchewan 2014).

Many of the communities in the Saskatchewan Socio-economic LSA and RSA provide services to assist the oil and gas industry. Concerns regarding labour shortages in the skilled trades, service and agricultural industries due to the competitiveness of the oil and gas industry were expressed. Concern was also raised regarding the loss of revenue or property value due to the decommissioning of the existing Line 3 pipeline. Specific information about the existing economic setting in each of the non-Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA is provided in Appendix 11.

Saskatchewan’s workforce population totalled 812,505 people in 2011 (Statistics Canada 2013). An estimated 69.2% of this population participated in the labour force and approximately 5.9% of the labour force was unemployed (Statistics Canada 2013). The RMs of Craik No. 222, Heart’s Hill No. 352 and Silverwood No. 123 have the highest labour force participation rate of the non-Aboriginal communities in the Saskatchewan Socio-economic LSA and RSA (92.7%, 92.3% and 90.1%, respectively). The Town of Rosetown and the villages of Loreburn and Maryfield have the lowest (59.9%, 61.1% and 58.7%, respectively). Of the Aboriginal groups in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA, Piapot First Nation has the lowest labour force participation rate (43.5%) and the Ocean Man First Nation has the highest (60.0%). Cowessess First Nation has the highest unemployment rate at 30.0%. Communities located in the Saskatchewan Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information was unavailable due to lack of data or for confidentiality reasons have been excluded from Tables 5.19-3 through 5.19-8.

Manitoba The Socio-economic LSA and RSA in Manitoba has a highly diversified economy, and a land base containing both natural resources and productive farm land. Manufacturing is Manitoba’s largest sector, and includes North America’s largest producer of intercity and urban buses (Government of Manitoba 2014b). Similar to Alberta and Saskatchewan, municipal representatives from Manitoba have

Page 5-272

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

expressed concerns regarding labour shortages in the skilled trades, service and agricultural industries due to the competitiveness of the oil and gas industry. Specific information about the existing economic setting in each of the non-Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA is provided in Appendix 11.

Manitoba’s workforce population totalled 946,945 people in 2011 (Statistics Canada 2013). An estimated 67.3% of this population participated in the labour force and approximately 6.2% of the labour force was unemployed (Statistics Canada 2013). The RMs of Wallace, Sifton and Oakland have the highest labour force participation rate of the non-Aboriginal communities in the Manitoba Socio-economic LSA and RSA (78.1%, 81.0% and 81.8%, respectively). The Village of Glenboro and the towns of Manitou and Altona have the lowest (62.5%, 62.8% and 62.5%, respectively). Of the Aboriginal groups in the Manitoba Socio- economic LSA and RSA, Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation has the lowest labour force participation rate (37.0%), as well as the highest unemployment rate (23.5%). Swan Lake First Nation has the highest labour force participate rate (59.6%). Communities located in the Manitoba Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information was unavailable due to lack of data or for confidentiality reasons have been excluded from Tables 5.19-3 through 5.19-8.

5.1.19.9 Employment and Economy Characteristics This subsection identifies existing regional and local employment characteristics for municipalities and Aboriginal groups considered in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA. Employment opportunities and economic effects may be experienced directly by communities in the Socio-economic LSA or indirectly by those living and working in the surrounding area (Socio-economic RSA).The NHS defines the workforce population as those of ages 15 years and older while previously the workforce population was defined as those of ages 15 years to 64 years (see Section 5.1.15). In addition, for some smaller communities and Aboriginal groups, certain Census of Canada and NHS data from Statistics Canada are suppressed, rounded or otherwise not made available for confidentiality reasons.

Information about the labour force, employment and unemployment rates, and totals of those employed in the agricultural and resource-based industries for non-Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA is presented in Tables 5.1.19-3 and 5.1.19-4, providing a general context of the current employment environment in the communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA.

TABLE 5.1.19-3

LABOUR FORCE ACTIVITY – NON-ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

2 2 based

-

Population

Location Total Total and 15 Population Over Force Labour the In Participation Rate (%) Unemployment (%) Rate in Force Labour and Agricultural Resource Industries Alberta 3,567,980 2,888,735 2,115,640 73.2 5.8 69,950 Saskatchewan 1,008,760 812,505 562,310 69.2 5.9 26,390 Town of Macklin 1,385 1,005 710 70.6 3.5 150 RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 260 205 190 92.7 0.0 55 RM of Oakdale No. 320 255 190 150 78.9 0.0 15 RM of Winslow No. 319 320 245 205 83.7 0.0 0 Village of Dodsland 210 175 125 71.4 0.0 0 RM of Marriott No. 317 200 165 135 81.8 0.0 0 Town of Rosetown 2,260 1,935 1,160 59.9 5.6 35 Village of Milden 175 160 100 62.5 0.0 20

Page 5-273

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.19-3 Cont'd

2 2 based

-

Location Total Population Total and 15 Population Over Force Labour the In Participation Rate (%) Unemployment (%) Rate in Force Labour and Agricultural Resource Industries Town of Outlook 2,090 1,700 1,040 61.2 1.4 85 Village of Loreburn 110 90 55 61.1 0.0 0 RM of Craik No. 222 100 65 60 92.3 0.0 0 City of Moose Jaw 32,345 26,855 17,330 64.5 5.7 515 Village of Grand Coulee 605 410 300 73.2 0.0 0 City of Regina 189,740 156,195 113,055 72.4 5.0 1,215 Town of Balgonie 1,625 1,230 980 79.7 2.0 0 RM of Lajord No. 128 745 435 300 69.0 0.0 0 Village of Glenavon 175 160 125 78.1 0.0 0 Town of Kipling 1,020 865 555 64.2 8.1 35 RM of Silverwood No. 123 465 355 320 90.1 0.0 55 RM of Wawken No. 93 560 515 440 85.4 3.4 50 RM of Walpole No. 92 335 260 210 80.8 0.0 20 Town of Moosomin 2,405 1,960 1,280 65.3 5.9 100 RM of Maryfield No. 91 320 255 180 70.6 0.0 0 Village of Maryfield 350 315 185 58.7 0.0 35 Manitoba 1,174,345 946,945 636,835 67.3 6.2 17,380 RM of Wallace 1,320 1,075 840 78.1 8.9 110 RM of Pipestone 1,415 1,160 820 70.7 4.3 90 Town of Virden 3,000 2,435 1,615 66.3 3.4 130 RM of Sifton 835 685 555 81.0 0.0 35 Town of Souris 1,770 1,540 1,010 65.6 5.4 50 RM of Oakland 945 740 605 81.8 9.1 25 City of Brandon 44,885 36,550 25,910 70.9 6.0 380 Village of Wawanesa 540 405 270 66.7 0.0 0 RM of South Cypress 495 375 280 74.7 0.0 0 Village of Glenboro 625 520 325 62.5 7.7 0 Town of Manitou 780 645 405 62.8 19.8 25 RM of Thompson 1,080 845 605 71.6 3.3 95 RM of Stanley 8,335 5,405 4,005 74.1 7.9 220 City of Morden 7,665 6,110 4,090 66.9 6.6 155 City of Winkler 10,490 8,060 5,240 65.0 3.1 175 Town of Altona 3,925 3,105 1,940 62.5 2.3 60 Source: Statistics Canada 2013 Notes: 1 Underlying population counts in the NHS may differ from those provided by the Census of Canada due to differing survey methods (see Section 2.1.3 Data Limitations). The Census of Canada is used as the source of population and demographic information in this report. However, NHS population counts are noted here as they are the basis of labour force estimates. Labour force metrics based on the NHS are the best available at the community/municipality level. - The communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information is not available due to lack of data or confidentiality (Section 2.1.3 Data Limitations) have been excluded from the table, including the Town of Sedgewick, Town of Hardisty, MD of Provost No. 52, Town of Provost, RM of Eye Hill No. 382, RM of Progress No. 351, Town of Kerrobert, RM of Mariposa No. 350, RM of Mountain View No. 318, RM of St. Andrews No. 287, RM of Milden No. 286, RM of Fertile Valley No. 285, RM of Loreburn No. 254, Village of Elbow, RM of Wilner No. 253, RM of Huron No. 223, Town of Davidson, Town of Craik, RM of Dufferin No. 190, Village of Bethune, RM of Pense No. 160, Town of Lumsden, RM of Sherwood No. 159, RM of Edenwold No. 158, RM of South Qu’Appelle No. 158, Town of White City, RM of Francis No. 127, Village of Vibank, Village of Odessa, RM of Montmartre No. 126, Village of Kendal, Village of Montmartre, RM of Chester No. 125, RM of Kingsley No. 124, Village of Fairlight, RM of Glenwood, RM of Argyle, RM of Lorne, RM of Pembina, RM of Rhineland and Town of Gretna.

Page 5-274

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.19-4

LABOUR FORCE ACTIVITY – ABORIGINAL GROUPS IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

based

-

Industries Participation Rate (%) Unemployment (%) Rate Location and 15 Population Over Force Labour the In Employed Unemployed in Force Labour and Agricultural Resource Alberta Saskatchewan Poundmaker Cree Nation (IR No. 114-28) 380 150 105 40 0 39.5 26.7 Nekaneet Cree Nation (IR) 90 50 45 10 0 55.6 20.0 Muskowekwan First Nation (IR No. 85-55) 350 150 105 40 0 42.9 38.1 Piapot First Nation (Piapot IR No. 75, Piapot Cree IR No. 75H, 310 135 100 30 0 43.5 22.2 Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Sakimay First Nation (Sakimay IR No. 74, Little Bone IR 365 175 150 45 0 47.9 25.7 No. 74B, Shesheep IR No. 74A, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Cowessess First Nation (Cowessess IR No. 73, Treaty Four 440 250 180 75 10 56.8 30.0 Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Kahkewistahaw First Nation (Kahkewistahaw IR No. 72, 340 195 145 55 0 57.4 28.2 Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Ocean Man First Nation (Ocean Man IR No. 69, Ocean Man 100 60 45 15 0 60.0 25.0 IR No. 69A, Ocean Man IR No. 69B, Ocean Man IR No. 69C, Ocean Man IR No. 69D, Ocean Man IR No. 69E, Ocean Man IR No. 69F, Ocean Man IR No. 69G, Ocean Man IR No. 69H, Ocean Man IR No. 69I, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Flying Dust First Nation (IR No. 105L) 340 205 160 45 15 60.3 28.1 White Bear First Nation (White Bear IR No. 70, Pheasant 560 325 265 75 20 58.0 23.1 Rump No. IR No. 68, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Pasqua First Nation (Pasqua IR No. 79, Treaty Four Reserve 375 165 135 30 0 44.0 18.2 Grounds IR No. 77) Manitoba Swan Lake First Nation (Swan Lake IR No. 7) 235 140 105 30 15 59.6 21.4 Canupawakpa Dakota Nation (Canupawakpa Dakota First 230 85 70 20 0 37.0 23.5 Nation [Oak Lake 59]) Source: Statistics Canada 2013 Note: - The communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information is not available due to lack of data or confidentiality (Section 2.1.3 Data Limitations) have been excluded from the table, including Métis Nation of Alberta Region II, Métis Nation of Alberta Region III, Muscowpetung First Nation (Muscowpetung IR No. 80, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), Standing Buffalo First Nation (Standing Buffalo IR No. 78), Carry the Kettle First Nation (Assiniboine IR No. 76, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), Ochapowace First Nation (Ochapowace IR No. 71, Ochapowace IR No. 71-7, Ochapowace IR No. 71-54, Ochapowace IR No. 71 51, Ochapowace IR No. 71-44, Ochapowace IR No. 71-18, Ochapowace IR No. 71-70, Ochapowace IR No. 71-10, Ochapowace IR No. 71-26, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), The Métis Nation - SK Western Region IIA, The Métis Nation - Saskatchewan Western Region III, The Métis Nation - SK Eastern Region III, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation (Sioux Valley Dakota Nation), Manitoba Métis Federation - Southeast Regional Métis Corporation and Manitoba Métis Federation Southwest Region Inc.

Data from Statistics Canada pertaining to educational attainment for non-Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups are provided in Tables 5.1.19-5 and 5.1.19-6, providing a context for the training, skills or education that the non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people living in the area may have. These groups are a potential source of skilled labour and educational attainment may indicate the availability of educated or trained personnel in the area.

Page 5-275 Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.19-5

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT – NON-ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

University University

- Location Population 15 and and 15 Population Over No Certificate, or Degree Diploma High School or Certificate Degree or Apprenticeship Certificate Trades or Diploma College, CEGEP or Other Non or Certificate Diploma University Below Certificate Level Bachelor the University or Certificate Degree Alberta 2,888,735 550,465 764,390 318,280 530,100 122,465 603,040 Saskatchewan 812,505 200,430 228,755 98,820 127,295 32,780 124,425 Town of Macklin 1,005 345 290 120 145 45 65 RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 205 50 70 20 20 30 15 RM of Oakdale No. 320 190 55 65 30 30 0 0 RM of Winslow No. 319 245 50 90 20 65 0 20 Village of Dodsland 175 40 55 35 0 0 0 RM of Marriott No. 317 165 40 50 0 15 0 35 Town of Rosetown 1,935 515 445 255 385 120 215 Village of Milden 160 35 45 15 40 0 25 Town of Outlook 1,695 305 380 275 375 125 240 Village of Loreburn 90 40 20 0 0 0 0 RM of Craik No. 222 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Moose Jaw 26,850 7,115 6,920 3,965 5,145 965 2,745 Village of Grand Coulee 410 25 90 110 105 15 50 City of Regina 156,195 28,850 46,905 15,400 23,605 7,380 34,050 Town of Balgonie 1,230 270 390 235 150 55 130 RM of Lajord No. 128 435 90 135 45 90 35 40 Village of Glenavon 160 60 20 55 25 0 0 Town of Kipling 865 315 255 120 85 15 75 RM of Silverwood No. 123 355 65 105 35 125 15 15 RM of Wawken No. 93 515 150 120 15 140 25 65 RM of Walpole No. 92 265 75 85 15 70 0 20 Town of Moosomin 1,960 475 540 260 420 70 190 RM of Maryfield No. 91 255 60 85 35 40 25 0 Village of Maryfield 320 95 120 65 25 0 0 Manitoba 946,940 237,615 262,500 89,285 150,445 38,600 168,495 RM of Wallace 1,075 330 310 95 190 20 130 RM of Pipestone 1,160 455 280 125 195 20 90 Town of Virden 2,430 575 740 390 360 80 285 RM of Sifton 690 175 220 100 90 45 50 Town of Souris 1,540 400 465 190 295 80 110 RM of Oakland 740 110 475 80 170 35 165 City of Brandon 36,550 7,400 11,005 4,235 6,660 1,200 6,050 Village of Wawanesa 410 95 100 75 95 0 35 RM of South Cypress 375 105 60 70 60 40 40 Village of Glenboro 520 155 160 70 50 0 70 Town of Manitou 650 190 145 85 120 30 70 RM of Thompson 845 275 245 95 95 85 40 RM of Stanley 5,410 2,340 1,270 615 785 100 300 City of Morden 6,105 1,830 1,660 485 1,080 215 840 City of Winkler 8,060 3,495 1,915 700 770 300 880 Town of Altona 3,100 1,045 895 315 390 145 310 Source: Statistics Canada 2013 Note: - The communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information is not available due to lack of data or confidentiality (Section 2.1.3 Data Limitations) have been excluded from the table and, including the Town of Sedgewick, Town of Hardisty, MD of Provost No. 52, Town of Provost, RM of Eye Hill No. 382, RM of Progress No. 351, Town of Kerrobert, RM of Mariposa No. 350, RM of Mountain View No. 318, RM of St. Andrews No. 287, RM of Milden No. 286, RM of Fertile Valley No. 285, RM of Loreburn No. 254, Village of Elbow, RM of Wilner No. 253, RM of Huron No. 223, Town of Davidson, Town of Craik, RM of Dufferin No. 190, Village of Bethune, RM of Pense No. 160, Town of Lumsden, RM of Sherwood No. 159, RM of Edenwold No. 158, Town of White City, RM of Francis No. 127, Village of Vibank, Village of Odessa, RM of Montmartre No. 126, Village of Kendal, Village of Montmartre, RM of Chester No. 125, RM of Kingsley No. 124, Village of Fairlight, RM of Glenwood, RM of Argyle, RM of Lorne, RM of Pembina, RM of Rhineland and Town of Gretna.

Page 5-276 Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.19-6

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT – ABORIGINAL GROUPS IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

Trades Trades

University Certificate Certificate University - Location Population 15 and Over and 15 Population or Diploma Certificate, No Degree or Certificate School High Degree or Apprenticeship Diploma or Certificate Other or CEGEP College, Non or Diploma Certificate University Level Bachelor the Below or Certificate University Degree Piapot First Nation (Piapot IR No. 75, Piapot Cree 305 180 75 20 15 10 10 IR No. 75H, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Sakimay First Nation (Sakimay IR No. 74, Little 365 165 95 35 20 0 30 Bone IR No. 74B, Shesheep IR No. 74A, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Cowessess First Nation (Cowessess IR No. 73, 440 170 145 35 50 10 30 Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Kahkewistahaw First Nation (Kahkewistahaw IR 340 155 95 35 40 10 15 No. 72, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Ocean Man First Nation (Ocean Man IR No. 69, 100 40 30 15 0 0 10 Ocean Man IR No. 69A, Ocean Man IR No. 69B, Ocean Man IR No. 69C, Ocean Man IR No. 69D, Ocean Man IR No. 69E, Ocean Man IR No. 69F, Ocean Man IR No. 69G, Ocean Man IR No. 69H, Ocean Man IR No. 69I, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Flying Dust First Nation (IR No. 105L) 335 145 85 45 35 10 20 White Bear First Nation (White Bear IR No. 70, 565 230 130 85 60 25 30 Pheasant Rump No. IR No. 68, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Pasqua First Nation (Pasqua IR No. 79, Treaty 370 150 130 25 50 10 10 Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Swan Lake First Nation (Swan Lake IR No. 7) 230 145 40 10 35 0 10 Canupawakpa Dakota Nation 225 145 40 20 20 0 10 (Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation (Oak Lake 59) Source: Statistics Canada 2013 Note: The communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information is not available due to lack of data or confidentiality (Section 2.1.3 Data Limitations) have been excluded from the table, including Métis Nation of Alberta Region II, Métis Nation of Alberta Region III, Muscowpetung First Nation (Muscowpetung IR No. 80, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), Standing Buffalo First Nation (Standing Buffalo IR No. 78), Carry the Kettle First Nation (Assiniboine IR No. 76, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), Ochapowace First Nation (Ochapowace IR No. 71, Ochapowace IR No. 71-7, Ochapowace IR No. 71-54, Ochapowace IR No. 71-51, Ochapowace IR No. 71-44, Ochapowace IR No. 71-18, Ochapowace IR No. 71-70, Ochapowace IR No. 71-10, Ochapowace IR No. 71-26, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), The Métis Nation - SK Western Region IIA, The Métis Nation - Saskatchewan Western Region III, The Métis Nation - SK Eastern Region III, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation (Sioux Valley Dakota Nation), Manitoba Métis Federation - Southeast Regional Métis Corporation and Manitoba Métis Federation Southwest Region Inc.

Demographic data regarding income such as median income, change in median income and full-time earnings for non-Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups are provided in Tables 5.1.19-7 and 5.1.19-8. This provides a context for income requirements or cost of living among those living in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA as well as current income conditions.

Page 5-277

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.19-7

INCOME AND EARNINGS – NON-ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

Population 15 Years Median Income, Persons 15 Years and Over and Over with Persons 15 Years with Earnings Who Worked Location Income and Over ($) Full-Year, Full-Time Alberta 2,750,740 36,306 1,651,205 Saskatchewan 776,195 31,408 435,700 Town of Macklin 940 30,345 550 RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 200 22,984 130 RM of Oakdale No. 320 185 33,250 105 RM of Winslow No. 319 245 20,248 150 Town of Rosetown 1,870 29,356 940 Town of Outlook 1,665 29,634 805 City of Moose Jaw 25,750 29,668 13,010 Village of Grand Coulee 390 42,716 260 City of Regina 150,250 36,113 89,765 Town of Balgonie 1,160 49,907 845 RM of Lajord No. 128 415 44,437 210 Town of Kipling 850 33,873 425 RM of Silverwood No. 123 350 21,663 220 RM of Wawken No. 93 495 31,444 300 RM of Walpole No. 92 255 26,384 170 Town of Moosomin 1,925 31,385 985 RM of Maryfield No. 91 240 26,470 130 Village of Maryfield 310 30,306 155 Manitoba 901,035 29,029 479,555 RM of Wallace 1,050 26,997 585 RM of Pipestone 1,150 30,924 640 Town of Virden 2,385 30,888 1,230 RM of Sifton 660 21,014 435 Town of Souris 1,490 24,171 650 RM of Oakland 720 37,077 480 City of Brandon 35,160 32,271 19,715 Village of Wawanesa 405 29,929 225 RM of South Cypress 370 32,261 230 Village of Glenboro 510 27,348 250 Town of Manitou 620 23,221 240 RM of Thompson 805 29,911 460 RM of Stanley 4,915 23,713 2,740 City of Morden 5,885 27,058 2,990 City of Winkler 7,585 23,890 3,805 Town of Altona 2,955 27,655 1,430 Source: Statistics Canada 2013 Note: - The communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information is not available due to lack of data or confidentiality (Section 2.1.3 Data Limitations) have been excluded from the table, including the Town of Sedgewick, Town of Hardisty, MD of Provost No. 52, Town of Provost, RM of Eye Hill No. 382, RM of Progress No. 351, Town of Kerrobert, RM of Mariposa No. 350, Village of Dodsland, RM of Mountain View No. 318, RM of Marriott No. 317, RM of St. Andrews No. 287, RM of Milden No. 286, Village of Milden, RM of Fertile Valley No. 285, RM of Loreburn No. 254, Village of Loreburn, Village of Elbow, RM of Wilner No. 253, RM of Huron No. 223, Town of Davidson, RM of Craik No. 222, Town of Craik, RM of Dufferin No. 190, Village of Bethune, RM of Pense No. 160, Town of Lumsden, RM of Sherwood No. 159, RM of Edenwold No. 158, RM of South Qu’Appelle No. 157, Town of White City, RM of Francis No. 127, Village of Vibank, Village of Odessa, RM of Montmartre No. 126, Village of Kendal, Village of Montmartre, RM of Chester No. 125, Village of Glenavon, RM of Kingsley No. 124, Village of Fairlight, RM of Glenwood, RM of Argyle, RM of Lorne, RM of Pembina, RM of Rhineland and Town of Gretna.

Page 5-278

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.1.19-8

INCOME AND EARNINGS – ABORIGINAL GROUPS IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDY AREAS

Population Median Income, Persons 15 Years and Over 15 Years and Persons 15 Years with Earnings Who Worked Location Over with Income and Over ($) Full-Year, Full-Time Piapot First Nation (Piapot IR No. 75, Piapot Cree IR 285 11,064 90 No. 75H, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Sakimay First Nation (Sakimay IR No. 74, Little Bone IR 180 11,701 115 No. 74B, Shesheep IR No. 74A, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Cowessess First Nation (Cowessess IR No. 73, Treaty 400 13,430 165 Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Kahkewistahaw First Nation (Kahkewistahaw IR No. 72, 275 14,019 120 Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Flying Dust First Nation (IR No. 105L) 305 16,218 105 White Bear First Nation (White Bear IR No. 70, Pheasant 475 17,324 240 Rump No. IR No. 68, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Pasqua First Nation (Pasqua IR No. 79, Treaty Four 330 9,198 120 Reserve Grounds IR No. 77) Swan Lake First Nation (Swan Lake IR No. 7) 220 9,493 70 Canupawakpa Dakota Nation (Canupawakpa Dakota 195 9,316 45 First Nation (Oak Lake 59)) Source: Statistics Canada 2013 Note: - The communities in the Socio-economic LSA and RSA where labour force activity information is not available due to lack of data or confidentiality (Section 2.1.3 Data Limitations) have been excluded from the table, including Métis Nation of Alberta Region II2, Métis Nation of Alberta Region III, Muscowpetung First Nation (Muscowpetung IR No. 80, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), Standing Buffalo First Nation (Standing Buffalo IR No. 78), Carry the Kettle First Nation (Assiniboine IR No. 76, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), Ochapowace First Nation (Ochapowace IR No. 71, Ochapowace IR No. 71-7, Ochapowace IR No. 71-54, Ochapowace IR No. 71-51, Ochapowace IR No. 71-44, Ochapowace IR No. 71-18, Ochapowace IR No. 71-70, Ochapowace IR No. 71-10, Ochapowace IR No. 71-26, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), Ocean Man First Nation (Ocean Man IR No. 69, Ocean Man IR No. 69A, Ocean Man IR No. 69B, Ocean Man IR No. 69C, Ocean Man IR No. 69D, Ocean Man IR No. 69E, Ocean Man IR No. 69F, Ocean Man IR No. 69G, Ocean Man IR No. 69H, Ocean Man IR No. 69I, Treaty Four Reserve Grounds IR No. 77), The Métis Nation - SK Western Region IIA, The Métis Nation - Saskatchewan Western Region III, The Métis Nation - SK Eastern Region III, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation (Sioux Valley Dakota Nation), Manitoba Métis Federation - Southeast Regional Métis Corporation and Manitoba Métis Federation Southwest Region Inc.

5.1.19.10 Anticipated Levels of Local and Regional Economic Participation Pending regulatory approval, construction activities will take place in summer 2016, winter 2016 to winter 2017, summer 2017 and some scattered work in summer 2018 (not a full spread). The construction of the replacement pipeline will entail three spreads or workers through three seasons of work. Each spread will need approximately 650 workers for an expected total work force of 1,950 under contractors.

Where qualified local contractors are available, they will have the opportunity to participate in the contracting process established by Enbridge. It is anticipated that local, regional and Aboriginal businesses could participate by providing various goods, services and technical expertise, and will realize economic benefits from the construction phase. Hotels and restaurants will also be used during preconstruction planning and consultation.

A number of enhancement measures will be implemented by Enbridge to facilitate qualified Aboriginal and local businesses obtaining contracts. These include: on-going discussions with Aboriginal groups to better understand business capabilities and to provide advance notice about contract and job opportunities and their requirements; ensuring businesses are made aware of the sub-contracting tendering processes and requirements well in advance; and the inclusion of an Aboriginal participation component in subcontracts and considering this in the bid evaluation.

Page 5-279

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.2 Permanent Facilities The following subsections present a summary of the environmental setting of the stations and terminals where Project activities and developments are planned, pursuant to Guide A.2.4 of the NEB Filing Manual. A summary of the proposed activities at these facilities is provided in Section 2.0.

A summary of the spatial boundaries for the elements discussed in the following permanent facilities environmental and socio-economic settings are described below. The spatial boundaries for each element are described in greater detail in Section 6.0, including the rationale for the determination of these boundaries.

• The Physical Environment and Soils LSA consists of a 500 m wide area extending from the boundaries of the permanent facilities.

• The Aquatics RSA is defined as a 15 km wide area extending from the boundaries of the permanent facilities.

• The Air Quality RSA is defined as a 20 km wide area extending from the boundaries of the permanent facilities.

• The Acoustic Environment LSA is defined as a 1.5 km wide area extending from the boundaries of the permanent facilities.

• The Wetland LSA is defined as a 30 m wide area extending from the boundaries of permanent facilities and a 2 km buffer extending from the boundaries of the Hardisty Terminal. The Wetland RSA is defined as a 15 km buffer extending from the boundaries of permanent facilities.

• The Vegetation LSA is defined as a 30 m wide area extending from the boundaries of the permanent facilities and 2 km from the Hardisty Terminal boundary. The Vegetation RSA is defined as a 1 km band extending from the boundaries of the permanent facilities and 5 km from the boundary of the Hardisty Terminal.

• The Wildlife LSA is defined as a 1.5 km wide area extending from the boundaries of the permanent facility boundaries, which incorporates the largest recommended setback distance for wildlife species potentially occurring in the Project area as well as the potential sensory disturbances associated with the operation of the facility. The Wildlife RSA is defined as a 15 km band extending from the boundaries of the permanent facilities.

• The HORU LSA is defined as 1.5 km wide area extending from the known permanent facility boundaries. The Human Occupancy and Resource Use RSA (HORU RSA) is defined as a 15 km wide area extending from the known permanent facility boundaries. The HORU RSA reflects the general setting of the Project and includes communities and resources that may be indirectly affected by the Project (e.g., consumptive and non-consumptive recreation). This spatial boundary includes permanent facilities.

• The Socio-economic LSA is defined as the ZOI in which social and cultural well-being, infrastructure and services, and employment and economy are most likely to be affected by the construction and operations of the Project. This consists of the boundaries of municipalities and Aboriginal groups where it can be reasonably expected that direct effects from Project activities will occur. This spatial boundary includes permanent facilities. The Socio-economic LSA was established to provide adequate consideration to the social and cultural well-being (e.g., community issues from consultation), and employment and economy aspects of communities where it can be reasonably expected that direct effects from the replacement pipeline will occur. This includes non-Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups with a range of population sizes in proximity to the replacement pipeline route.

• The Socio-economic RSA is defined as the boundaries of the MD and the RMs considered in the assessment. Economic analysis was also conducted at the provincial and national levels. The Socio-economic RSA is defined based on the general setting of the replacement pipeline and

Page 5-280

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

includes communities and resources that may be indirectly affected by the construction and operations of the replacement pipeline. This spatial boundary includes permanent facilities.

• The Heritage Resources RSA consists of the area extending beyond the Footprint and is defined as an area of adjoining Borden Blocks intersected by the replacement pipeline route (Borden and Duff 1952).

5.2.1 Hardisty Terminal The Project activities at the Hardisty Terminal include construction of three tanks, booster pumps, a metering facility, interconnection work, a retention pond as well as sending and receiving traps at E ½ 19- 42-9 W4M (Figure 2.4.1-1). All Project activities will occur within the existing facility boundaries, however, work will occur on an area previously undisturbed by industrial development. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for the Hardisty Terminal pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual are provided in Table 5.2.1-1.

TABLE 5.2.1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HARDISTY TERMINAL

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • The Hardisty Terminal lies at the border of the Battle River district of the Lac La Biche Plain Section and the Neutral Upland Meteorological district of the Neutral Hills Uplands section of the Eastern Alberta Plains Physiographic Region (Pettapiece 1986). Environment • The Lower Belly Group formation underlies Hardisty Terminal. This formation is composed of: very fine to medium-grained, buff weathering sandstone; thin coal layers; and brownish-grey, carbonaceous silty mudstone as well as sandstone- dominated, coursing upwards members that intertongue with mudstone of the Lea Park Formation in east central Alberta. The formation also has non-marine to shallow marine characteristics (Prior et al. 2013). • There are no areas of permafrost within the area of the Hardisty Terminal (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The Hardisty Terminal is located east of the Battle River valley. The topography in the area of the Hardisty Terminal is relatively flat and the elevation is approximately 675 m asl. • Surficial deposits at the Hardisty Terminal are fluvial deposits consisting of fine sand, silt and clay sediments up to 25 m thick (Shetsen 1990). • The Hardisty Terminal is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.7°C while the mean annual precipitation is 354.4 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Camrose, located approximately 110 km northwest of the Hardisty Terminal. Temperature variations range from 36.7°C to -47.8°C (Environment Canada 2013a) Soil and Soil Productivity • Existing soils information is available for most of the Hardisty Terminal property from site-specific soil investigations and mapping previously conducted by Mentiga. Additional soil investigations will be conducted prior to construction in areas not previously surveyed (Section 10). Detailed descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3B. • The majority of the Project activities will be conducted within the existing Hardisty Terminal, which lacks a vegetative cover, however, the work at the Hardisty Terminal will also occur south of the previously disturbed areas and will encroach upon an area of tame pasture and treed pasture. • Rapidly-drained Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems developed on stone-free to slightly stony, loamy sand textured glaciofluvial material (Wainwright soils) are the dominant soils in the study area. These soils are characterized by 7-50 cm of dark brown to very dark grayish brown, loamy sand to sandy loam textured topsoil (Ah horizon) overlying a yellowish brown, loamy sand textured, single grained Bm horizon. Colour differentiation between topsoils and upper subsoils ranges from fair to good. Soils at the Hardisty Terminal are susceptible to unstable trench walls when vertically ditched and wind erosion due to their physical characteristics (i.e., loose consistency and very coarse texture) (Appendix 3B). • Rapidly-drained Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems developed on glaciofluvial coarse sands and pea-gravel (Scollard soils) occur on northern portions of the study area. These soils are characterized by 18-55 cm of very dark brown, loamy sand to coarse sand textured topsoil (Ah horizon) overlying a yellowish brown, coarse sand to pea-gravel textured, single grained Bm horizon. Colour differentiation between topsoils and upper subsoils is good. Soils at the Hardisty Terminal are susceptible to unstable trench walls when vertically ditched and wind erosion due to their physical characteristics (i.e., loose consistency and very coarse texture) (Appendix 3B). • CLI (1970a) has rated the soils at the Hardisty Terminal as Class 4 (soils that have severe limitations that restrict the range of crops or require special conservation practices). • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on-site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Alberta Environmental Assessment Repository also revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (AESRD 2014h).

Page 5-281

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.1-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Water Quality and • The Hardisty Terminal is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. Quantity • Hydrostatic testing may be required for activities at the Hardisty Terminal. Water may be diverted from a nearby river or creek for this purpose. • There are no wetlands external to the existing terminal boundaries within 30 m. However, one Class III wetland is located inside the terminal boundaries at NW 19-42-9 W4M. The work at the Hardisty Terminal will be conducted within the existing terminal boundaries on previously-disturbed land, tame pasture and treed pasture. No work is proposed at NW 19-42-9 W4M where the Class III wetland is located. Therefore, disturbance of wetlands is not anticipated. • There are no known springs in the vicinity of the Hardisty Terminal (Borneuf 1983). • There are eight domestic wells located within 500 m of the Hardisty Terminal. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at the Hardisty Terminal include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Hardisty Terminal are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources or emissions such as those arising from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent rural roads and railways, and the surrounding agricultural and oil and gas activities (e.g., tank farms). • Hardisty Terminal is located approximately 4 km southeast of the Town of Hardisty, Alberta. The nearest residences are located approximately 480 m and 980 m northwest of the existing Enbridge Terminal fence-line. • The Project scope at the Hardisty Terminal includes the installation of three new crude oil storage tanks with an external floating roof, and establishing connectivity between these tanks and replacement pipeline. The work will involve construction activities and piping metal works, which will release small amounts of CACs emissions. • During operation, fugitive emissions of H2S, Mercaptans and a group of BTEX substances are expected as “standing” and “working” losses from these new tanks. • An air quality assessment was conducted for the Hardisty Terminal by Stantec in June 2014. Since H2S, Mercaptans and BTEX emissions present a concern from human health and the environment, their assessment was conducted in accordance with the Alberta Air Quality Modelling Guideline (AESRD 2013aA plume dispersion model was conducted for the three new tanks and the 96 existing and approved tanks at Hardisty Terminal to determine the maximum allowable H2S concentrations in tank headspaces that will ensure acceptable ambient air quality and to evaluate the potential cumulative effects of H2S, Mercaptans and BTEX emissions on ambient air quality as well as 19 receptors in the vicinity of the Hardisty Terminal (Appendix 4). • Results of the air dispersion modelling indicate that the maximum predicted ground level concentrations of all contaminants within all time averaging intervals will be within acceptable regulatory limits, with the exception of H2S. Dispersion modelling results for the baseline case predict exceedance of AAAQO for 24-hr H2S. The predicted Project contribution toH2S concentrations is 0.6% and is not considered substantive (Appendix 4). GHG Emissions • Products handled and stored in existing and proposed tanks contain GHGs; small amounts will be released through fugitive emissions (e.g., CH4 and CO2). • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding the Hardisty Terminal are from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent roads and railways, farm equipment as well as the existing facilities at Hardisty Terminal and adjacent tank farms. • The nearest residents are located approximately 480 m and 980 m northwest of the Hardisty Terminal. • A noise bylaw for the MD of Provost was not available online or provided in hardcopy. It is unknown if a noise bylaw has yet been developed for the MD of Provost. • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for the Hardisty Terminal by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residences at 480 m and 980 m are 40.6 and 40.2 dBA LeqNight respectively. Both residences are predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 2 permissible sound levels of 45 dBA LeqNight and 55 dBA LeqDay for each site. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • Hydrostatic testing may be required for activities at the Hardisty Terminal. Water may be withdrawn from the fire pond at the Hardisty Terminal, or water may be reused from hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. However, water may be diverted from a nearby river or creek for this purpose. • There are no federally-listed aquatic species at risk in the vicinity of the Hardisty Terminal.

Page 5-282

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.1-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations

Wetlands • The Hardisty Terminal is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Alberta in Section 5.1.8.1. • There are no wetlands external to the existing terminal boundaries within 30 m. However, one Class III wetland occurs inside the terminal boundaries at NW 19-42-9 W4M. • The work at the Hardisty Terminal will be conducted within the existing terminal boundaries on previously-disturbed land, tame pasture and treed pasture. No wetlands were identified at SE 19-42-9 W4M during ground based surveys in 2014, the work at SW 19-42-9 W4M and NE 19-42-9 W4M will be conducted on previously-disturbed land and no work is proposed at NW 19-42-9 W4M where the Class III wetland is located. Therefore, disturbance of wetlands is not anticipated. • The Hardisty Terminal is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • The Hardisty Terminal is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Alberta NAWMP Partnership Management Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • The Hardisty Terminal is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • The Hardisty Terminal is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks or ecological reserves (ATPR 2013a), wildlife areas (AESRD 2013b), Environmentally Significant Areas or AESAs (ATPR 2009, Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. 2009, 2011). • The Hardisty Terminal is located 120 m northwest of Environmentally Significant Area No. 362 (ATPR 2009). This Environmentally Significant Area is approximately 244,680 km2 in area and is of national significance. It contains large natural areas with intact riparian habitat (Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. 2009). Vegetation • The Hardisty Terminal is located within the Central Parkland Natural Subregion of the Parkland Natural Region, which consists mainly of cultivated land with areas of trembling aspen and prairie vegetation in remnant native parkland areas (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • Project activities will be conducted within the southern boundary of the Hardisty Terminal which consists of areas of tame pasture and treed pasture. As Project activities will be conducted on lands that may support native vegetation, detailed vegetation information is deemed to be warranted. • The Hardisty Terminal is located 120 m northwest of Environmentally Significant Area No. 362 (ATPR 2009). This Environmentally Significant Area is approximately 244,680 km2 and is of national significance. It contains intact riparian areas, large natural areas and five elements of conservation concern including two vascular (beaked annual skeleton-weed and shrubby evening primrose) (Fiera Biological Consulting 2009). • A search of the ACIMS database was conducted and five rare plant occurrences, beaked annual skeleton-weed (Shinnersoseris rostrata) (S2), Bruner’s trumpetweed (Eupatorium maculatum) (S1S2), prairie wedge grass (Sphenopholis obtusata) (S2), Pennsylvania cinquefoil (Potentilla pensylvanica var. pensylvanica) (S1) and sand-millet (Dichanthelium wilcoxianum) (S1), are known to occur within 5 km of the Hardisty Terminal (ATPR 2013b). • Three rare plant species, prairie wedge grass (Sphenopholis obtusata) (S2), scratch grass (Muhlenbergia asperifolia) (S3) and water-horehound (Lycopus americanus) (S3) and one liverwort, cavernous crystalwort (Riccia cavernosa) (S1), were observed within 2 km of the Hardisty Terminal during the 2013 vegetation surveys. • A vegetation survey was conducted on June 3, 2014. Vegetation within the proposed station was dominated by smooth brome and Kentucky blue grass. No rare plants were observed within the Hardisty Terminal boundary during the vegetation surveys. • Weeds of concern in the MD of Provost No. 52 include downy brome and leafy spurge (Forbes pers. comm.). • Leafy spurge, a Noxious weed, was observed during the vegetation survey. There were six additional non-listed, invasive species observed including crested wheatgrass, flixweed and lamb’s-quarter’s. Wildlife and Wildlife • The Hardisty Terminal is located within the Sharp-tailed Grouse Range (AESRD 2013b). Habitat • The Hardisty Terminal is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Alberta NAWMP Partnership Management Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • The Hardisty Terminal is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (ATPR 2013a, Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • The Hardisty Terminal is located 120 m northwest of Environmentally Significant Area No. 362 (ATPR 2009). This 24,468 ha Environmentally Significant Area provides large natural areas and habitat for species such as northern grasshopper mouse, burrowing owl and ferruginous hawk (Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. 2009). • Construction activities at the Hardisty Terminal will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on tame pasture and treed pasture previously undisturbed by industrial development. There is the potential to disturb wildlife species by construction activities. • During wildlife field work in 2013, 10 bird species were recorded including Sprague’s pipit (Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) and least flycatcher (provincially-listed as Sensitive).

Page 5-283

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.1-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • There are no federally-listed fish species found in the vicinity of the Hardisty Terminal. Species of Special • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species at Status risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • Project activities will be conducted within the southern boundary of the Hardisty Terminal which consists of an area of tame pasture and treed pasture. • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the terminal (ATPR 2013a). • No plant species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern under the SARA or COSEWIC are known to occur in the Central Parkland Natural Subregion (ATPR 2013b). • No vegetation species at risk were observed during the 2014 vegetation surveys. • A search of the AESRD FWMIS database reported observations of one species, American badger (Special Concern by COSEWIC) listed under Schedule 1 of SARA and/or by COSEWIC, and two species, bald eagle and Canadian toad, provincially-listed as Sensitive in Alberta (ASRD 2011b) within 2 km of the Hardisty Terminal (AESRD 2014e). • Construction activities will be conducted on tame pasture and treed pasture which provides suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status including bobolink (Threatened by COSEWIC), chestnut-collared longspur, common nighthawk (Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) and short-eared owl (Special Concern under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC). • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at the Hardisty Terminal, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (AESRD 2014e). • Sprague’s pipits (Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) were observed in tame pasture near SKP 184.6 (SE 19-42-9 W4M) during field work in 2013. No barn swallows were observed during field work. Human Occupancy and • The Hardisty Terminal is situated on previously disturbed industrial land owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities Resource Use will occur south of the terminal on tame pasture and treed pasture. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture and also contain facilities sites owned by TransCanada, Gibson Energy and Husky Energy. The Hardisty Terminal is located on lands administered by the MD of Provost No. 52 and that have been zoned as Industrial (MD of Provost No. 52 2014). Surrounding lands are zoned as Agricultural (MD of Provost No. 52 2014). The Project activities are compatible with industrial zoning at this site. • The Hardisty Terminal is situated in Neutral Hills Wildlife WMU 202. • The Hardisty Terminal is situated in the Parkland-Prairie FMZ and the Provost (SE239) Fish Wildlife District. • The Hardisty Terminal encounters Environmentally Significant Area 362 at KP 184.8 (SE 19-42-9 W4M). • The Hardisty Terminal does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (AltaLIS 2014, ATPR 2009, 2012, 2013a,b, Alberta Energy 2014b,c,d, IHS Inc. 2011). • The Hardisty Terminal is situated on Enbridge privately-owned land. As such, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the terminal. • Project activities at the Hardisty Terminal will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps and tanks) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • The Hardisty Terminal is located in an area with a Historical Resource Value of 5 for archaeological resources. This category indicates that the area is believed to contain a heritage resource. • Since most of the Hardisty Terminal is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for additional heritage resources is considered negligible. • Previously undisturbed lands designated for construction within the southern boundary of the existing Enbridge property will be assessed for heritage resources as part of the HRIA program for the Project. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project, and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to the Hardisty Terminal. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • The Hardisty Terminal is located in the MD of Provost No. 52 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Well-Being Town of Hardisty. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in the Socio-Economic Technical Report (Appendix 11). • The construction activities associated with the Hardisty Terminal will require a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities (i.e., Town of Hardisty) arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated.

Page 5-284

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.1-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at the Hardisty Terminal. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at the Hardisty Terminal during operations. • Noise levels at the Hardisty Terminal during operations are predicted to be below the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) Directive 038 guidelines, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at the Hardisty Terminal does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to the Hardisty Terminal will be via provincial Highways 13 and 41, Secondary Highway 881 as well as municipal grid Services roads. Access to the facility site is only possible using existing Hardisty Terminal access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (refer to the Socio-Economic Technical Report [Appendix 11]). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (refer to the Socio-Economic Technical Report [Appendix 11]). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at the Hardisty Terminal and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • The Hardisty Terminal is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or Navigation Safety wetland. Employment and • Participation rate in the labour force, employment rate and unemployment rate are not available due to the unavailability of Economy data or for confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.2 Metiskow Station The proposed Project activities at Metiskow Station include construction of three motor units at SE 1-40-5 W4M (Figure 2.4.1-2). All work will be completed within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands. The northern portion of Metiskow Station has not previously been subjected to industrial disturbance, however, no Project activities are anticipated in this area. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Metiskow Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.2-1.

Page 5-285

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.2-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR METISKOW STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Metiskow Station lies within the Ribstone Plains district of the Snipe Lake Plain section of the Eastern Alberta Plains Meteorological physiographic region (Pettapiece 1986). Environment • The site is located on ice-contact lacustrine and fluvial deposits of gravel, sand, silt and clay, with local till up to 25 m thick (Shetsen 1990). • The Lower Belly Group formation underlies Metiskow Terminal. This formation is composed of: very fine to medium-grained, buff weathering sandstone; thin coal layers; and brownish-grey, carbonaceous silty mudstone as well as sandstone- dominated, coursing upwards members that intertongue with mudstone of the Lea Park Formation in east central Alberta. The formation also has non-marine to shallow marine characteristics (Prior et al. 2013). • There are no areas of permafrost within the area of Metiskow Station (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Metiskow Station is rolling and the elevation is approximately 681 m asl. • Surficial geology at Metiskow Station is composed of ice-contact lacustrine and fluvial deposits of gravel, sand, silt and clay, with local till up to 25 m thick (Shetsen 1990). • Metiskow Station is located within the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 3.0°C while the mean annual precipitation is 370.6 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Stettler, located approximately 157 km west of Metiskow Station. Temperature variations range from 36.0°C to -45.0°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at Metiskow Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Alberta Environmental Assessment Repository also revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (AESRD 2014h). Water Quality and • Metiskow Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. Quantity • One wetland occurs within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Metiskow Station (Borneuf 1983). • There are two domestic wells located within 500 m of Metiskow Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Metiskow Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • The community of Metiskow is located approximately 3 km to the west of Metiskow Station. There are two residences located approximately 405 m southeast of the station and 1,450 m west of the centre of the station. • Air emissions in the vicinity of Metiskow Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources or emissions such as those arising from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent rural roads and railway, and surrounding agricultural activities. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Metiskow Station includes the replacement pipeline and connectivity work between built-in transfer manifold and various existing manifolds as well as connectivity between different auxiliary lines. This work will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which will release small amounts of CACs emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment used for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Metiskow Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the work at Metiskow Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Metiskow Station includes the installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between various existing manifolds and connectivity between different auxiliary lines. This work will also involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may release small amounts of GHGs. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Metiskow Station are from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent roads and railway, and farm equipment as well as the operation of the existing Metiskow Station. • The community of Metiskow is located approximately 3 km to the west of Metiskow Station. There are two residences located approximately 405 m southeast and 1,450 m west of the centre of the station. • A noise bylaw for the MD of Provost was not available online or provided in hardcopy. It is unknown if a noise bylaw has yet been developed for the MD of Provost.

Page 5-286

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.2-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Metiskow Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the (cont’d) noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residences at 405 m and 1,450 m are 41.5 and 35.4 dBA LeqNight respectively. The residence at 405 m is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay for Category 1. The residence at 1,450 m is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 permissible sound levels of 45 dBA LeqNight and 55 dBA LeqDay for Category 2. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re- used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Metiskow Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Metiskow Station is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Alberta in Section 5.1.8.1. • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: a Class I/II wetland adjacent to the west station boundary at SE 1-40-5 W4M. • The work at Metiskow Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries on previously disturbed land and is not anticipated to cause disturbance to wetlands. • Metiskow Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Metiskow Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Alberta NAWMP Partnership Management Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Metiskow Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Metiskow Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks or ecological reserves (ATPR 2013a) or AESAs (Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. 2011). • Metiskow Station is located 1.2 km from Environmentally Significant Area No. 345 (ATPR 2009), which provides habitat for wetland wildlife. This 10,267 ha Environmentally Significant Area is one of the most productive shorebird staging areas in Canada (Metiskow and Sunken lakes) with evidence of breeding piping plovers, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk and shape-tailed grouse (Fiera Biological Consulting 2009). • Metiskow Station is located within one provincially identified wildlife area, the Sensitive Amphibian Range for Great Plains toad and plains spadefoot toad (AESRD 2013b). Vegetation • Metiskow Station is included in the Central Parkland Natural Subregion of the Parkland Natural Region, which mainly consists of cultivated land with areas of trembling aspen and prairie vegetation in remnant native parkland areas (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • Aerial imagery shows that the northern portion of the Metiskow Station consists of disturbed treed pasture with moderate potential for rare plants, however, Project activities at Metiskow Station will be conducted in the southern portion of the station, within an existing large, previously disturbed, unvegetated industrial site that is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • Metiskow Station is located 1.2 km of Environmentally Significant Area No. 345 (ATPR 2009). This Environmentally Significant Area is approximately 102.7 km2 and is of international significance. It contains rare or unique landforms, large natural areas, sites of recognized significance (Metiskow and Sunken lakes) and six elements of conservation concern including two vascular plants (few-flowered aster and Parry’s sedge) as well as one vegetation community (Nevada bulrush [seaside arrow-grass]). • A search of the ACIMS database was conducted and two rare ecological communities, Nevada bulrush – seaside arrow-grass (Scirpus nevadensis – Triglochin maritima) (S2S3) and Nuttall’s salt-meadow grass community (Puccinellia nuttalliana community) (S3?), are known to occur within 5 km of Metiskow Station (ATPR 2013a). • Weeds of concern in the MD of Provost No. 52 are downy brome and leafy spurge (Forbes pers. comm.).

Page 5-287

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.2-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife • Metiskow Station is located within a Sensitive Amphibian Range for Great Plains toad and plains spadefoot toad and Habitat Sharp-tailed Grouse Range (AESRD 2013b). • Metiskow Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Alberta NAWMP Partnership Management Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Metiskow Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (ATPR 2013a, Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Metiskow Station is located 1.2 km north of Environmentally Significant Area No. 345 (ATPR 2009). This 10,267 ha Environmentally Significant Area is one of the most productive shorebird staging areas in Canada with evidence of breeding piping plovers, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk and shape-tailed grouse (Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. 2009). • Construction activities at Metiskow Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or Species • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (ATPR 2013a). • No plant species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern under SARA or COSEWIC are known to occur in the Central Parkland Natural Subregion (ATPR 2013b). • Project activities at Metiskow Station will occur within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the AESRD FWMIS database did not report any observations wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Metiskow Station (AESRD 2014e). • Construction activities will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at Metiskow Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (AESRD 2014e). Human Occupancy and • Metiskow Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for Resource Use agriculture. Metiskow Station is located on lands administered by the MD of Provost No. 52 that have been zoned as Industrial. Surrounding lands are zoned as Agricultural (MD of Provost No. 52 2014). The proposed Project activities are compatible with industrial zoning at this site. • Metiskow Station is situated in Sounding WMU 200. • Metiskow Station is situated in the Parkland-Prairie FMZ and the Provost (SE239) Fish Wildlife District. • Metiskow Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (AltaLIS 2014, ATPR 2009, 2012, 2013a,b, Alberta Energy 2014b,c,d, IHS Inc. 2011). • Metiskow Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Metiskow Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since Metiskow Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site mostly stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. The northern portion of Metiskow Station consists of disturbed treed pasture, however, activities associated with the Project are not anticipated to impact this area. TLRU • Since June 2012 Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project, and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the project to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Metiskow Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Metiskow Station is located in the MD of Provost No. 52 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Well-being Town of Provost. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Section 3.2 of the Socio- Economic Technical Report (Appendix 11). • The construction activities at the Metiskow Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated.

Page 5-288

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.2-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Metiskow Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Metiskow Station during operations. • Noise levels at Metiskow Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Metiskow Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and Services • Access to the Metiskow Station will be via provincial Highway 13 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is only possible using existing Metiskow Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (refer to the Socio-Economic Technical Report [Appendix 11]). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (refer to the Socio-Economic Technical Report [Appendix 11]). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Metiskow Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and Navigation • Metiskow Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Safety Employment and Economy • Participation rate in the labour force, employment and unemployment rates are not available due to the unavailability of data or for confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.3 Cactus Lake Station The proposed Project activities at Cactus Lake Station include construction of three motor units at NE 32-36-27 W3M (Figure 2.4.1-3). Work at Cactus Lake Station will be conducted within the facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands. NEB approval has been given for the expansion of Cactus Lake Station onto undisturbed lands to the west and south of the station as part of a previous Enbridge application. This expansion area is considered as disturbed land for the Project. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Cactus Lake Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.3-1.

Page 5-289

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.3-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR CACTUS LAKE STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Cactus Lake Station is located on the west edge of the Snipe Lake Plain of the Alberta High Plains Physiographic Region Meteorological (Luba 1987). Environment • The Bearpaw Formation underlies Cactus Lake Station. This formation is composed of: grey marine claystone, shale and siltstone; minor brownish grey sandstone; concretionary beds and thin bentonite layers; and commonly includes foraminifera and mollusk coquinas (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Cactus Lake Station is undulating to gently rolling and the elevation is approximately 700 m asl. • The site encounters moraine glacial deposits consisting of unsorted mixtures of boulders, gravel, sand, silt and clay (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997). • Cactus Lake Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. The climate in the area is a subhumid, semi-arid climate characterised by short, warm summers and cold winters (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995, Padbury and Acton 1994). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.3°C while the mean annual precipitation is 341.7 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Kerrobert, located approximately 45 km southeast of Cactus Lake Station. Temperature variations range from 40.5°C to -45°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at Cactus Lake Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed one listed oil spill in 2002 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and • Cactus Lake Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. Quantity • The work at NE 32-36-27 W3M will be conducted within the existing station boundaries in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Cactus Lake Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Cactus Lake Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Cactus Lake Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Cactus Lake Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • The nearest residences are located approximately 300 m to the north-northeast of the station and 1,250 m to the west- northwest of the station. The nearest community is the Town of Cactus Lake located approximately 3 km south of the site. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Cactus Lake Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity between auxiliary lines. This work will also involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Cactus Lake Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since work at Cactus Lake Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Cactus Lake Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work will also involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5).

Page 5-290

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.3-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Cactus Lake Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • The nearest residences are located approximately 300 m to the north-northeast of the site and 1,250 m to the west- northwest of the site. The nearest community is the Town of Cactus Lake located approximately 3 km south of the site. • There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in the RM of Eye Hill No. 382 (Pilat pers. comm.). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Cactus Lake Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residences at 300 m and 1.250 m are 39.6 and 35.4 dBA LeqNight respectively. Both residences are predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay for each site. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In additional, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re- used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Cactus Lake Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Cactus Lake Station is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: a Class I/II wetland crossed by the east station boundary at NE 32-36-27 W3M. • The work at Cactus Lake Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. Therefore additional disturbance to wetlands is not anticipated. • Cactus Lake Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Cactus Lake Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Cactus Lake Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Cactus Lake Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014). • Cactus Lake Station is located approximately 1.5 km northeast of Cactus Lake Migratory Bird Concentration Site (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Cactus Lake Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation of this ecoregion includes speargrasses, wheatgrasses, western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry and silverberry (SK CDC 2012b). • Project activities at Cactus Lake Station will occur within an existing large, previously disturbed, unvegetated industrial site that is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database did not indicate any rare plant species within 5 km of Cactus Lake Station (SK CDC 2014a). • Weeds of concern in the RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 include toadflax and scentless chamomile (Fisher pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife • Cactus Lake Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Habitat (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Cactus Lake Station is 1.5 km northeast of Cactus Lake Migratory Bird Concentration Sites (SK CDC 2014a). • Cactus Lake Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Cactus Lake Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Cactus Lake Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities.

Page 5-291

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.3-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (SK CDC 2014a). • Small-flowered sand-verbena, smooth arid goosefoot and buffalo grass are expected to potentially occur within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion. However, the potential habitat for these species is low within the Cactus Lake Station footprint. • Project activities at Cactus Lake Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Cactus Lake Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on land that will have been previously disturbed, which is not considered suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at Cactus Lake Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (SK CDC 2014a). Human Occupancy and • Cactus Lake Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will Resource Use occur on previously disturbed or cultivated lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Cactus Lake Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352. • Cactus Lake Station is situated in WMZ 26. • Cactus Lake Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Cactus Lake Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Cactus Lake Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since most of Cactus Lake Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. • Lands designated for construction in the western portion of the existing Enbridge property will have been disturbed as part of a previous application. Therefore, the potential for intact archaeological deposits in this area is negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012 Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project, and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Cactus Lake Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Cactus Lake Station is located in the RM of Heart’s Hill No. 352 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is Well-being the Town of Macklin. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in the Socio-Economic Technical Report (Appendix 11). • The construction activities at Cactus Lake Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Cactus Lake Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Cactus Lake Station during operations. • Noise levels at Cactus Lake Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Cactus Lake Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6).

Page 5-292

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.3-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and • Access to Cactus Lake Station will be via provincial Highway 317 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is Services only possible using existing Cactus Lake Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (refer to the Socio-Economic Technical Report [Appendix 11]). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (refer to the Socio-Economic Technical Report [Appendix 11]). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Cactus Lake Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible impact on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • Cactus Lake Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or Navigation Safety wetland. Employment and • In 2011, the Town of Macklin had a 70.6% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 68.7% and an Economy unemployment rate of 3.5% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11 of this ESA.

5.2.4 Kerrobert Station The proposed Project activities at Kerrobert Station include construction of three motor units at SE 34-33- 22 W3M (Figure 2.4.1-4) and will be completed within the existing facility boundaries. Project work in the northern part of the station will encounter land that has not previously undergone industrial disturbance. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Kerrobert Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.4-1.

TABLE 5.2.4-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR KERROBERT STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and Meteorological • Kerrobert Station is located on the west edge of the Snipe Lake Plain of the Alberta High Plains Physiographic Region Environment (Ferguson and Hunt 1981). • The site is underlain by the Bearpaw Formation composed of: grey marine claystone; shale and siltstone; minor brownish grey sandstone; concretionary beds and thin bentonite layers; commonly with foraminifera and mollusk coquinas (Macdonald and Simmon 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost in the vicinity of Kerrobert Station (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • Kerrobert Station encounters glaciolacustrine deposits consisting of sand, silt and clay accumulations deposited in glacial lakes (Simpson 1997). • The topography in the area of Kerrobert Station is level and the elevation is approximately 654 m asl. • The site is within the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.3°C while the mean annual precipitation is 341.7 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Kerrobert. Temperature variations range from 40.5°C to -45°C (Environment Canada 2013a).

Page 5-293

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.4-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Soil and Soil Productivity • Most of the Project activities at Kerrobert Station will be conducted within an existing previously-disturbed, industrial site. However, Project activities will encounter hay lands in the northern portion of the station. All activities will be conducted within Enbridge property boundaries. • Site-specific soil investigations and mapping for Kerrobert Station were conducted by Mentiga in October 2013. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3B. • Moderately well to imperfectly-drained Brown Solodized Solonetz and Brown Solonetz developed on silty clay loam textured glaciolacustrine material overlying loam to clay loam textured till overlying loam to clay loam textured till (shallow Kelstern soils) occur throughout the study area. These soils are characterized by 9-16 cm of topsoil that are not easily distinguished from subsoils by colour. Soils at Kerrobert Station have a tough, dark coloured Bnt horizon overlying a light brownish gray IICsk horizon, which is usually moderately to strongly saline and sodic (Appendix 3B). • CLI (1968b) has rated the soils at Kerrobert Station as Class 4 (soils that have severe limitations that restrict the range of crops or require special conservation practices, or both) and Class 5 (soils that have very severe limitations that restrict their capability to producing perennial forage crops, and improvement practices are feasible). • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed 18 listed spills in the vicinity of Kerrobert Station (at 34-33-22 W3M) from 1991 to 2010 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and Quantity • Kerrobert Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. • Four wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Kerrobert Station. • There are three domestic wells located within 500 m of Kerrobert Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Kerrobert Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Kerrobert Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • The nearest residence is located approximately 200 m to the east-northeast of the station. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Kerrobert Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work will also involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may release small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Kerrobert Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Kerrobert Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Kerrobert Station includes the installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Kerrobert Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • The nearest residence is located approximately 200 m to the east-northeast of the site. • There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in the RM of Eye Hill No. 382 (Pilat pers. comm.). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Kerrobert Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 200 m is 41.3 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be above the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound level of 40 dBA LeqNight for the site. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Kerrobert Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Page 5-294

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.4-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations

Wetlands • Kerrobert Station is located in the PCG Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCG Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • Four wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: one Class III wetland complex crossing the south station boundary at NE 27-33-22 W3M; one Class III wetland adjacent to the west station boundary at SW 34-33-22 W3M; and two Class I/II wetlands adjacent to/crossing the west station boundary at SW 34-33-22 W3M. • The work at Kerrobert Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries mostly on previously disturbed lands and lands used for hay production. Additional disturbance of wetlands is not anticipated. • Kerrobert Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Kerrobert Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Kerrobert Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Kerrobert Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • Kerrobert Station is 900 m south of White Heron Lake Migratory Bird Concentration Site (CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Kerrobert Station is located Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation in this ecoregion includes wheatgrasses, speargrasses, and to a lesser extent, blue grama which is dominant on droughty soils or under high grazing pressure. Shrub communities composed of snowberry and silverberry are found in areas of favourable soil moisture (SK CDC 2012b). • Project activities at Kerrobert Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some hay areas (i.e., non-native vegetation) and is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database did not indicate any rare plant species within 5 km of Kerrobert Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The weed of concern in the RM of Oakdale No. 320 is scentless chamomile (Sheety pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Kerrobert Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Kerrobert Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Kerrobert Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • Kerrobert Station is 900 m south of White Heron Lake Migratory Bird Concentration Site (SK CDC 2014). • The construction activities at Kerrobert Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands and hay land. Both the previously disturbed land and hay land are not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or Species of • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish Special Status species at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the Station (SK CDC 2014a). • Slender mouse ear cress is expected to potentially occur in the Mixed Grassland Ecoregion. However, the potential habitat within the footprint of the station is low for this species. • Project activities at Kerrobert Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some hay areas and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Kerrobert Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands and hay land, which are not considered suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at Kerrobert Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (SK CDC 2014a).

Page 5-295

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.4-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Occupancy and • Kerrobert Station is situated on previously disturbed industrial lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction Resource Use activities will occur on previously disturbed or hay lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Kerrobert Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Oakdale No. 320. • Kerrobert Station is situated in WMZ 27. • Kerrobert Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Kerrobert Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Kerrobert Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since most of Kerrobert Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. • New lands designated for construction within the east-central boundary of the existing Enbridge property, although located in an area of agricultural disturbance with low potential for intact surface or subsurface deposits, will be assessed for heritage resources. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project, and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Kerrobert Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural Well-being • Kerrobert Station is located in the RM of Oakdale No. 320 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Town of Kerrobert. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in the Socio-Economic Technical Report (Appendix 11). • The construction activities at Kerrobert Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Kerrobert Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions are discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Kerrobert Station during operations. • Although noise levels at Kerrobert Station may increase slightly during operations due to the pump station, as discussed in Appendix 6 of this ESA, Enbridge will conduct supplemental noise monitoring once the Project is commissioned to determine if further mitigation is necessary to ensure compliance with ERCB Directive 038 (ERCB 2007). Infrastructure and Services • Access to Kerrobert Station will be via provincial Highways 21 and 31 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is only possible using existing Kerrobert Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (refer to the Socio-Economic Technical Report [Appendix 11]). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (refer to the Socio-Economic Technical Report [Appendix 11]). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Kerrobert Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and Navigation • Kerrobert Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or Safety wetland. Employment and Economy • Participation rate in the labour force, employment and unemployment rate rates are not available due to the unavailability of data or for confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11 of this ESA.

Page 5-296

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.2.5 Herschel Station The proposed Project activities at Herschel Station include construction of three motor units at S ½ 16-31- 16 W3M (Figure 2.4.1-5). NEB approval has been given for the expansion of Herschel Station onto undisturbed lands to the west of the station as part of a previous Enbridge application. This expansion area is considered as disturbed land for the Project. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Herschel Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.5-1.

TABLE 5.2.5-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR HERSCHEL STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Herschel Station is located on the west edge of the Saskatchewan Plain of the Interior Plains Physiographic Region Meteorological (Fulton 1989). Environment • The Bearpaw Formation underlies Herschel Station. This formation is composed of: grey marine claystone, shale and siltstone; minor brownish grey sandstone; concretionary beds and thin bentonite layers; and commonly includes foraminifera and mollusk coquinas (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost within the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes or landslides in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Herschel Station is relatively flat and the elevation is approximately 610 m asl. • The site encounters glaciolacustrine deposits consisting of sand, silt and clay accumulations deposited in glacial lakes (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997). • Herschel Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. The climate in the area is a subhumid, semi-arid climate characterised by short, warm summers and cold winters (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995, Padbury and Acton 1994). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.9°C while the mean annual precipitation is 327 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Rosetown, located approximately 45 km southwest of Herschel Station. Temperature variations range from 41°C to -44°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at Herschel Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on-site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed no listed oil spills from June 1990 to April 2013 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and • Herschel Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. Quantity • Two wetlands occur within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Herschel Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Herschel Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Herschel Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Herschel Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • Herschel Station is located approximately 1.2 km northeast of the Village of Herschel. The nearest residence is located approximately 1,250 m north-northwest of Herschel Station. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Herschel Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity between auxiliary lines. This work will also involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Herschel Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Herschel Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Herschel Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5).

Page 5-297

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.5-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Herschel Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and from agricultural activities. • Herschel Station is located approximately 1.2 km northeast of the Village of Herschel. The nearest residence is located approximately 1,250 m north-northwest of Herschel Station. • A noise bylaw for the RM of Mountain View No. 318 was not available online or provided in hardcopy. It is unknown if a noise bylaw has yet been developed for the RM of Mountain View No. 318. • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Herschel Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 1,250 m is 35.4 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In additional, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re- used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Herschel Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Herschel Station is located in the PCG Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCG Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • Two wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: one Class II wetland adjacent to the south station boundary at SW 16-31-16 W3M and one Class I/II wetland adjacent to the east station boundary at SE 16-31-16 W3M. • The work at Herschel Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. Therefore this work is not is not anticipated to cause additional disturbance to wetlands. • Herschel Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Herschel Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Herschel Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Herschel Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Herschel Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation of this ecoregion includes speargrasses, wheatgrasses, western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry and silverberry (SK CDC 2012b). • Project activities at Herschel Station will occur within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site and it is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database did not indicate any rare plant species within 5 km of Herschel Station (SK CDC 2014a). • No specific weeds of concern were identified in the RM of Mountain View No. 318 (K. Martin pers. comm.) at the time of writing this report. Wildlife and Wildlife • Herschel Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan Habitat NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Herschel Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Herschel Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Herschel Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on land that will have been previously disturbed, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities.

Page 5-298

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.5-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (SK CDC 2014a). • Small-flowered sand-verbena, smooth arid goosefoot and buffalograss are expected to potentially occur within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion. However, the potential habitat for these species is low within the Herschel Station footprint. • Project activities at Herschel Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Herschel Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands, which is not considered suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011). During previous field work, barns swallows were observed in the vicinity of the facility (TERA Environmental Consultants 2013). If barn swallows are observed actively nesting within 100 m of the proposed construction activities, the nest will be subject to site-specific mitigation measures (i.e., clearly marked protective buffer around the nest and/or non-intrusive monitoring). Human Occupancy and • Herschel Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will be Resource Use limited to the previously disturbed industrial lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Herschel Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Mountain View No. 318. • Herschel Station is situated in WMZ 28. • Hershel Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Herschel Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Herschel Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since most of Herschel Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. • Lands designated for construction in the western portion of the existing Enbridge property will have been disturbed as part of a previous application. Therefore, the potential for intact archaeological deposits in this area is negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project, and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Herschel Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Herschel Station is located in the RM of Mountain View No. 318 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is Well-being the Town of Rosetown. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in the Socio-Economic Technical Report (Appendix 11). • The construction activities at Herschel Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Herschel Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Herschel Station during operations. • Noise levels at Herschel Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Herschel Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6).

Page 5-299

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.5-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and • Access to Herschel Station will be via provincial Highway 31 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is only Services possible using existing Herschel Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Herschel Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • Herschel Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Navigation Safety Employment and • In 2011, the Town of Rosetown had a 59.9% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 56.6% and an Economy unemployment rate of 5.6% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.6 Milden Station The proposed Project activities at Milden Station include the construction of three motor units and new sending and receiving traps at SE 6-29-10 W3M (Figure 2.4.1-6). Milden Station will be expanded to the north onto newly acquired lands to accommodate pump station activities and construction. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Milden Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.1.6-1.

TABLE 5.2.6-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR MILDEN STATION

Environmental and Socio- Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and Meteorological • Milden Station lies within the Saskatchewan River Plain of the Saskatchewan Plains Physiographic region (Hart and Environment Hunt 1981). • The site is underlain by the Bearpaw Formation composed of grey marine claystone, shale and siltstone; minor brownish grey sandstone; concretionary beds and thin bentonite layers; commonly with foraminifera and mollusk coquinas (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost within the area of Milden Station (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Milden Station is relatively flat and the elevation is approximately 586 m asl. • The site is located on glaciolacustrine deposits consisting of sand, silt and clay accumulations deposited in glacial lakes (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997). • Milden Station is located within the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.9°C while the mean annual precipitation is 327.0 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Rosetown, located approximately 60 km west of Milden Station. Temperature variations range from 41°C to -44°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soils and Soil Productivity • Site-specific soil investigations and mapping for Milden Station were conducted by Mentiga in October 2013. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3B. • Land use at Milden Station on the proposed expansion area is cultivated, while the remaining is disturbed land. • Well to moderately well-drained Orthic and Rego Dark Brown Chernozems developed on loam to silty clay loam textured glaciolacustrine material (Elstow soils) are the dominant soils in the expansion area. These soils are characterized by 15-21 cm of dark brown to very dark grayish brown, loam to silty clay loam textured topsoil (Ap horizon) overlying a dark yellowish brown, silt loam to silty clay loam textured Bm horizon. Topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour (Appendix 3B).

Page 5-300

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.6-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio- Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Soil and Soil Productivity • Well to moderately well-drained Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems developed on slightly to moderately stony, loan to (cont’d) clay loam textured till (Weyburn soils) occur in the eastern part of the study area. These soils are characterized by 13-17 cm of topsoil that is easily distinguished from subsoils by colour. Topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour (Appendix 3B). CLI (1970c) has rated the soils at Milden Station as Class 3 (soils that have moderately severe limitations in use for crops). • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on-site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed one listed oil spill in 1991 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and Quantity • Milden Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Milden Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Milden Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Milden Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Milden Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • Milden Station is located approximately 15 km southwest of the Village of Milden. The nearest residence is located approximately 550 m west-southwest of Milden Station. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Milden Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, new sending and receiving traps, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work will also involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Milden Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Milden Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • • The Project scope at Milden Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Milden Station are from the existing pumps operating at the station, vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and agricultural activities. • Milden Station is located approximately 15 km southwest of the Village of Milden. The nearest residence is located approximately 550 m west-southwest of Milden Station. • There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in the RM of Milden No. 286 (Nieman pers. comm.). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Milden Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 550 m is 39.0 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Milden Station is located within the North Saskatchewan River Basin. • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Milden Station is located in the PCG Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCG Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: a Class III wetland adjacent to the east boundary at SW 5-29-10 W3M.

Page 5-301

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.6-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio- Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wetlands (cont’d) • The work at Milden Station will be conducted on previously disturbed land within the existing station boundaries and in an expansion area on newly acquired land on the north side of the station. The newly acquired land is cultivated, and, therefore, the expansion is not anticipated to cause disturbance to wetlands. • Milden Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Milden Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Milden Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Milden Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Milden Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation of this ecoregion includes speargrasses, wheatgrasses, western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry and silverberry (SK CDC 2012b). • Project activities at Milden Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site or cultivated lands which have been impacted by past agricultural land use (i.e., non-native vegetation) and are not considered to be suitable for rare species. This boundary of this station will be expanded towards the north, however, the area of expansion is encroaching upon cultivated land. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database was conducted and one rare plant, Engelmann’s spike-rush (Eleocharis engelmannii) (S2) is known to occur within 5 km of Milden Station (SK CDC 2014a). Due to the industrial/cultivated land use within the station Footprint and the limited amount of native vegetation in the vicinity of the station, the potential for rare species habitat adjacent to the existing station is low. • Weeds of concern in the RM of Fertile Valley No. 285 include Canada thistle and leafy spurge (Jones, J. pers. comm.) Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Milden Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Milden Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Milden Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • Permanent facility expansion will be conducted north of the facility on newly acquired cultivated land that will have been previously disturbed. This land is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or Species of • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish Special Status species at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the Station (SK CDC 2014a). • Small-flowered sand-verbena, smooth arid goosefoot and buffalograss are expected to potentially occur within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion. However, the potential habitat for these species is low within the Milden Station footprint. • Project activities at Milden Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Milden Station (SK CDC 2014a). • Permanent facility expansion will be conducted on newly acquired cultivated land, which is not considered to be suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at Milden Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (SK CDC 2014a). Human Occupancy and • Milden Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used Resource Use for agriculture. The construction area will occur both on disturbed lands and on privately-owned cultivated land to be acquired by Enbridge. Milden Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Mountain View No. 318. • Milden Station is situated in WMZ 24. • Milden Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b).

Page 5-302

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.6-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio- Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Occupancy and • Milden Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide Resource Use (cont’d) outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Milden Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since Milden Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. • New lands designated for construction adjacent to the northern boundary of the existing disturbance area, although located in an area of agricultural disturbance with low potential for intact surface or subsurface deposits, will be assessed for heritage resources. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline corridor to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the project to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to the Milden Station. • Refer also to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural Well-being • Milden Station is located in the RM of Fertile Valley No. 285 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Village of Milden. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at Milden Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Milden Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Milden Station during operations. • Noise levels at Milden Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Milden Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and Services • Access to the Milden Station will be via provincial Highways 42 and 15 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is only possible using existing Milden Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Milden Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and Navigation • Milden Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or Safety wetland. Employment and Economy • In 2011, the Village of Milden had a 62.5% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 59.4% and an unemployment rate of 0.0% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.7 Loreburn Station The proposed Project activities at Loreburn Station include the construction of two motor units at NW 1- 26-5 W3M and SW 12-26-5 W3M (Figure 2.4.1-7). NEB approval has been given for the expansion of Loreburn Station onto undisturbed lands to the south of the station as part of a previous Enbridge application. This expansion area is considered as disturbed land for the Project. Work at Loreburn Station will, therefore, be completed within the existing boundaries on previously disturbed lands. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Loreburn Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.7-1.

Page 5-303

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.7-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOREBURN STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Loreburn Station lies within the Hawarden Hills Upland Subdivision of the Saskatchewan Plains Physiographic Region Meteorological (Luba 1987). Environment • The Bearpaw Formation underlies Loreburn Station. This formation is composed of: grey marine claystone, shale and siltstone; minor brownish grey sandstone; concretionary beds and thin bentonite layers; and commonly includes foraminifera and mollusk coquinas (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes or landslides in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Loreburn Station is relatively flat and the elevation is approximately 610 m asl. • The site encounters glacial till consisting of an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, cobbles and boulders (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997). • Loreburn Station is located within Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion within the Prairie Ecozone. The climate in the area is a subhumid, sub-arid climate characterised by short, warm summers and cold winters (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995, Padbury and Acton 1994). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2°C while the mean annual precipitation is 365.6 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Davidson, located approximately 50 km west of Loreburn Station. Temperature variations range from 42.2°C to -46.74°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at Loreburn Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed no listed oil spills from June 1990 to April 2013 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d) Water Quality and • Loreburn Station is located within the South Saskatchewan River Basin. Quantity • Tie-in work at Loreburn Station (NW 1-26-5 W3M and SW 12-26-5 W3M) will be undertaken in an area that has been already approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. • Four wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Loreburn Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Loreburn Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Loreburn Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Loreburn Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • Loreburn Station is located approximately 3 km to the south of the Village of Loreburn. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Loreburn Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works which are not CAC emissions intensive or do not involve any emissions at all. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Loreburn Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Loreburn Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Loreburn Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5).

Page 5-304

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.7-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Loreburn Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads. • Loreburn Station is located approximately 3 km to the south of the Village of Loreburn. There are no occupied dwellings within the Acoustic Environment LSA. • There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in the RM of Loreburn No. 254 (Stronski, N. pers. comm.). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Loreburn Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate that all theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will be under the AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re- used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Loreburn Station is located within the South Saskatchewan River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Loreburn Station is located in the PCG Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCG Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • Four wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: one Class III wetland crossing the south station boundary at NW 1-26-5 W3M; one Class III wetland adjacent to the west station boundary at NW 1-26-5 W3M/SW 12-26-5 W3M; one Class III wetland crossing the west station boundary at SW 12-26-5 W3M and one Class I/II wetland adjacent to the east station boundary at NW 1-26-5 W3M. • The work at Loreburn Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. Therefore, additional disturbance to wetlands is not anticipated. • Loreburn Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Loreburn Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Loreburn Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Loreburn Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Loreburn Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation of this ecoregion includes speargrasses and wheatgrasses, western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry and silverberry (SK CDC 2012b). • Aerial imagery shows that there are cultivated areas (i.e., non-native vegetation) within the northern boundary of Loreburn Station, however, Project activities will be conducted within the southern boundary of the station. • Project activities at Loreburn Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas (i.e., non-native vegetation) and is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database was conducted and two rare plants, curved yellow-cress (Rorippa curvipes var. truncata) (S2S3) and Engelmann’s spike-rush (Eleocharis engelmannii) (S2), are known to occur within 5 km of Loreburn Station (SK CDC 2014a). Due to the industrial/cultivated land use within the station area and the limited amount of native vegetation in the vicinity of the station, the potential for rare species habitat adjacent to the existing station is low with the exception of the remnant treed areas within the northwestern boundary of the station where no Project activities will occur. • No weeds of concern were identified in the RM of Loreburn No. 254 (Stronski pers. comm.) at the time of writing this report. Wildlife and Wildlife • Loreburn Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Habitat (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Loreburn Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Loreburn Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a).

Page 5-305

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.7-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife • The construction activities at Loreburn Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously Habitat (cont’d) disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or Species • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish of Special Status species at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (SK CDC 2014a). • Slender mouse ear cress is expected to potentially occur in the Mixed Grassland Ecoregion. However, the potential habitat within the footprint of the station is low for that species. • Project activities at Loreburn Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database reported observations of one burrowing owl (Endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) within 2 km of Loreburn Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Loreburn Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at Loreburn Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (SK CDC 2014a). Human Occupancy and • Loreburn Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will occur Resource Use on previously disturbed or cultivated lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Loreburn Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Mountain View No. 318. • Loreburn Station is situated in WMZ 23. • Loreburn Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Loreburn Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Loreburn Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since the Loreburn Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline corridor to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the project to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to the Loreburn Station. • Refer also to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Loreburn Station is located in the RM of Loreburn No. 254 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Well-being Village of Loreburn. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at the Loreburn Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Loreburn Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Loreburn Station during operations. • Noise levels at Loreburn Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Loreburn Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6).

Page 5-306

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.7-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and • Access to the Loreburn Station will be via provincial Highway 19 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is Services only possible using existing Loreburn Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (refer to Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Loreburn Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and Navigation • Loreburn Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Safety Employment and • In 2011, the Village of Loreburn had a 61.1% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 61.1% and Economy an unemployment rate of 0.0% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.8 Craik Station The proposed Project activities at Craik Station include the construction of three motor units at SE 10-23-29 W2M and NE 3-23-29 W2M (Figure 2.4.1-8). All Project work will be completed within the existing facility boundaries. While most of Craik Station consists of a disturbed industrial site, most of the work associated with the Project will be conducted in the southern portion of Craik Station on lands not previously disturbed by industrial activity. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Craik Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.8-1.

TABLE 5.2.8-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR CRAIK STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Craik Station lies within the Assiniboine River Plain Subdivision of the Saskatchewan Plains Physiographic Region (Flory Meteorological 1980). Environment • The site is underlain by the Bearpaw Formation composed of: grey marine claystone, shale and siltstone; minor brownish grey sandstone; concretionary beds and thin bentonite layers; and commonly with foraminifera and mollusk coquinas (Macdonald and Simmon 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost within the area of Craik Station (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Craik Station consists of gentle slopes and the elevation is approximately 595 m ASL. • The site is located on glacial till consisting of an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, cobbles and boulders (Simpson 1997). • Craik Station is located within the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 4.0°C while the mean annual precipitation is 365.1 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Moose Jaw, located approximately 83 km southeast of Craik Station. Temperature variations range from 41.7°C to -45.6°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soils and Soil • Site-specific soil investigations and mapping for Craik Station were conducted by Mentiga in October 2013. Detailed Productivity descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3B. • Most of Craik Station consists of a large, previously disturbed industrial site. However, Project activities will be conducted in the southern portion of Craik Station in an area with native prairie. • Rapidly-drained Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems developed on sandy loam to loamy coarse sand textured glaciofluvial material (Biggar soils) are the dominant soils in the northwestern area. These soils are characterized by 15-17 cm of dark brown to very dark grayish brown, sandy loam textured topsoil (Ah horizon) overlying a yellowish brown, sandy loam to loam textured Bm horizon. Topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour. Soils at Craik Station are susceptible to unstable trench walls when vertically ditched physical characteristics (Appendix 3B).

Page 5-307

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.8-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Soil and Soil Productivity • A very poorly-drained level area in the southeastern portion of the site consists of Rego Humic Gleysols developed on (cont’d) glaciofluvial sands and loams (Cathkin soils). These soils are characterized by approximately 22 cm of topsoil that is very dark brown in colour and sandy loam textured. Topsoils are not easily distinguished from subsoils by colour. The Cskg horizon encountered at depths of about 32-35 cm below the topsoil horizon is weakly to moderately saline. The water table occurs immediately below the topsoil horizon (Appendix 3B). • Well-drained Orthic Dark Brown Chernozems developed on sandy loam textured glaciofluvial veneer overlying saline, loam to clay loam textured till (shallow Biggar with a saline lower subsoil, soils) occur in the south-central part of the expansion area. These soils are characterized by 13-21 cm of sandy loam textured, dark brown to very dark grayish brown topsoil (Ah horizon) overlying a yellowish brown, sandy loam to loam textured Bm horizon. Topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour (Appendix 3B). • CLI (1970c) has rated the soils at Craik Station as Class 5 (soils that have very severe limitations that restrict their capability to producing perennial forage crops, and improvement practices are feasible). • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on-site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed an active site undergoing detailed testing at the Craik RCMP Detachment (Site 00022463), however, there are no listed contaminations within the station footprint (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed no listed oil spills from June 1990 to April 2013 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and • Craik Station is located within the Qu’Appelle River Basin. Quantity • Two wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Craik Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Craik Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Craik Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Craik Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • Craik Station is located approximately 21 km to the southwest of the Town of Craik. The nearest residence is located approximately 1,600 m east of the station. • The Project scope at Craik Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work will also involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works which are not CAC emissions intensive or do not involve any emissions at all. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Craik Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Craik Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Craik Station are from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent roads and railways, and from agricultural activities. • Craik Station is located approximately 21 km to the southwest of the Town of Craik. The nearest residence is located approximately 1,600 m east of the station. • There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in the RM of Craik No. 222 (Yates pers. comm.). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Craik Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 1,600 m is 35.7 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. Additionally, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Craik Station is located within the Qu’Appelle River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Page 5-308

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.8-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations

Wetlands • Craik Station is located in the PCG Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCG Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • Two wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: one Class III wetland adjacent to the east station boundary at SW 11-23-29 W2M and one Class III wetland crossing the west station boundary at SE 10-23-29 W2M. In addition, one Class II wetland occurs inside the station boundaries at NE 3-23-29 W2M. • The work at Craik Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries on undisturbed native prairie. Enbridge plans to avoid disturbance of the Class II wetland at NE 3-23-29 W2M during facility construction activities that occur directly adjacent to the wetland. However, this wetland will be encountered by the proposed pipeline work within the station boundaries. • Craik Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Craik Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Craik Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Craik Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Craik Station is located within the Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation in this ecoregion includes wheatgrasses and speargrasses and, to a lesser extent, blue grama which is dominant on droughty soils or under high grazing pressure. Shrub communities composed of snowberry and silverberry are found in areas of favourable soil moisture (SK CDC 2012b). • The majority of the Project activities at Craik Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed, unvegetated, industrial site. However, there is an area with native prairie land within the southern boundary of the station and a wetland within the southern boundary of the station. • A search of the SK CDC database did not indicate any rare plant species within 5 km of Craik Station (SK CDC 2014a). • A vegetation survey was conducted on June 7, 2014. Native vegetation within the proposed station was dominated by crested wheatgrass, June grass, pasture sage, silverberry, small-leaved pussy-toes, western snowberry and western wheatgrass. No rare plants were observed within the Craik Station boundary during the vegetation survey. • The weed of concern in the RM of Craik No. 222 is leafy spurge (Patient pers. comm.). • There was one Noxious species, nodding thistle, which was observed during the vegetation survey. There was one additional non-listed, invasive species, common dandelion that was observed during the vegetation survey. Wildlife and Wildlife • Craik Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan Habitat NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Craik Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Craik Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries of Craik Station on previously disturbed land and native prairie. Native prairie is considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. • One Class II wetland is located inside the station boundaries at NE 3-23-29 W2M. Enbridge plans to avoid disturbance of the Class II wetland. No disturbance of wildlife or wildlife habitat associated with the Class II wetland is expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. • During wildlife field work in 2013 and 2014, 14 bird species were recorded including a barn swallow (Threatened by COSEWIC). An active great horned owl nest was observed in a tree stand approximately 300 m south of the boundary of the existing Craik Station.

Page 5-309

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.8-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (SK CDC 2014a). • Slender mouse ear cress is expected to potentially occur in the Mixed Grassland Ecoregion. However, the potential habitat within the footprint of the station is low for that species. • No vegetation species with a SARA or COSEWIC designation were observed during the vegetation survey in 2014. • Ferruginous hawk (Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) and short-eared owl (Special Concern under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) and evidence of American badger (Special Concern by COSEWIC) were observed in the vicinity of Craik Station during previous field work (TERA Environmental Consultants 2010d). • A search of the SK CDC database reported observations of ferruginous hawk (Threatened under Schedule 1 of the SARA and by COSEWIC) and short-eared owl (Special Concern under Schedule 1 of the SARA and by COSEWIC), and evidence of American badger (Special Concern by COSEWIC) within 2 km of Craik Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries of Craik Station on previously disturbed land and native prairie. Native prairie is suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • One Class II wetland is located inside the station boundaries at NE 3-23-29 W2M. Enbridge plans to avoid disturbance of the Class II wetland. No disturbance of wildlife species with special conservation status or habitat associated with the Class II wetland is expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. • Construction activities have the potential to disturb the following wildlife species with special conservation status: bobolink (Threatened by COSEWIC); chestnut-collared longspur, common nighthawk, Sprague’s pipit (all listed as Threatened under Schedule 1 of the SARA and by COSEWIC); as well as McCown’s longspur and short-eared owl (both Special Concern under Schedule 1 of the SARA and by COSEWIC). • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011). An individual was observed during 2013 and 2014 wildlife field work. If barn swallows are observed actively nesting within 100 m of the proposed construction activities, the nest will be subject to site-specific mitigation measures (i.e., clearly marked protective buffer around the nest and/or non-intrusive monitoring). Human Occupancy and • Craik Station is situated on lands owned by Enbridge. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Craik Station Resource Use is located on lands administered by the RM of Craik No. 222. Proposed construction activities will occur in the southern portion of Craik Station in an area with native prairie and a wetland within the southern boundary of the station. • Craik Station is situated in WMZ 23. • Craik Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Craik Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Craik Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Project activities may occur on previously undisturbed lands. The potential for Heritage Resources was assessed as part of the HRIA that was completed for the Project, in accordance with provincial regulations. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • Craik Station is located within Crown land, however at the time of writing, engagement for the Project did not reveal any TLU sites or features requiring mitigation adjacent to Craik Station. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Craik Station. • Refer also to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Craik Station is located in the RM of Craik No. 222 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Town of Well-being Craik. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at the Craik Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated.

Page 5-310

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.8-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Craik Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Craik Station during operations. • Noise levels at Craik Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Craik Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to the Craik Station will be via provincial Highways 42 and 11 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is Services only possible using existing Craik Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Craik Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • Craik Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Navigation Safety Employment and • Participation rate in the labour force, employment and unemployment rates are not available due to the unavailability of data Economy or for confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.9 Bethune Station The proposed Project activities at Bethune Station include construction of three motor units at SE 22-19-24 W2M (Figure 2.4.1-9). NEB approval has been given for the expansion of Bethune Station onto undisturbed lands to the west and south of the station as part of a previous Enbridge application. This expansion area is considered as disturbed land for the Project. All work at Bethune Station associated with the Project will, therefore, be completed within the facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands. Table 5.2.9-1 provides a summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Bethune Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual.

TABLE 5.2.9-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR BETHUNE STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Bethune Station lies within the Assiniboine River Plain Subdivision of the Saskatchewan Plains Physiographic Region Meteorological (Flory 1980). Environment • The Bearpaw Formation underlies the Bethune Station. This formation is composed of: grey marine claystone, shale and siltstone; minor brownish grey sandstone; concretionary beds and thin bentonite layers; and commonly includes foraminifera and mollusk coquinas (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes, landslides or avalanches in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b,c,d). • The topography in the area of Bethune Station is gently undulating to rolling and the elevation is approximately 560 m asl. • The site encounters glacial till consisting of an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, cobbles and boulders (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997).

Page 5-311

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.9-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Bethune Station is located within Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion within the Prairie Ecozone. The climate in the area is a Meteorological subhumid, sub-arid climate characterised by short, warm summers and cold winters (Environment Canada 2010, Padbury Environment (cont’d) and Acton 1994). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.3°C while the mean annual precipitation is 378.1 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Regina, located approximately 60 km southeast of Bethune Station. Temperature variations range from 43.9°C to 47.2°C (Environment Canada 2013a). • Activities at Bethune Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed no listed oil spills from June 1990 to April 2013 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at Bethune Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed no listed oil spills from June 1990 to April 2013 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and • Bethune Station is located within the Qu’Appelle River Basin. Quantity • Expansion areas at Bethune Station are located on areas that have been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. • Four wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Bethune Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Bethune Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Bethune Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Bethune Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • Bethune Station is located approximately 10 km south of the Village of Bethune. The nearest receptor is a trapper’s cabin located approximately 950 m to the south of the pump station. • The Project does not involve the construction and operation of any equipment or transport devices with the potential to emit substantial amounts of CAC emissions at Bethune Station on a continual basis. Therefore, the primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Bethune Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units/motors, establishing connectivity between various existing manifolds and connectivity between different auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works which are not CAC emissions intensive or do not involve any emissions at all. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Bethune Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Bethune Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and from agricultural activities. • Bethune Station is located approximately 10 km south of the Village of Bethune. The nearest residence is located approximately 950 m to the south of the pump station. The receptor is a trapper’s cabin which is located at an elevation well below the station and, therefore, there is no direct line-of-sight between the cabin and the station (Appendix 6). The nearest residence that is permanently inhabited is approximately 2,000 m northeast of the station. • A noise bylaw for the RM of Dufferin No. 190 was not available online or provided in hardcopy. It is unknown if a noise bylaw has yet been developed for RM of Dufferin No. 190. • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Bethune Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 950 m is 35.1 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6).

Page 5-312

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.9-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the (cont’d) cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Bethune Station is located within the Qu’Appelle River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Bethune Station is located in the PCG Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCG Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • Four wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: one Class III wetland adjacent to the west station boundary at SE 22-19-24 W2M; one treed swamp adjacent to the south station boundary at SE 22-19-24 W2M; one Class IV adjacent to the north station boundary at SE 22-19-24 W2M and one Class IV wetland crossing the east station boundary at SE 22-19-24 W2M/SW 23-19-24 W2M. In addition, one Class II wetland is located inside the station boundaries at SE 22-19-24 W2M. • The work at Bethune Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. Therefore additional disturbance to wetlands is not anticipated. However the Class II wetland at SE 22-19-24 W2M will be encountered by the proposed pipeline work within the station boundaries. • Bethune Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Bethune Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Bethune Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Bethune Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Bethune Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation of this ecoregion includes speargrasses, wheatgrasses, western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry and silverberry (SK CDC 2012b). • Project activities at Bethune Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas (i.e., non-native vegetation) and is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database was conducted and two rare plants, low milk-vetch (Astragalus lotiflorus) (S3) and mad dog skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora var. lateriflora) (S3), are known to occur within 5 km of Bethune Station (SK CDC 2014a). Due to the industrial/cultivated (i.e., non-native vegetation) land use within the station area and the limited amount of native vegetation in the vicinity of the station, the potential for rare species habitat within the boundaries of and adjacent to the existing station is low. • The weed of concern in the RM of Dufferin No. 190 is leafy spurge (Patient pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife • Bethune Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan Habitat NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Bethune Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Bethune Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Bethune Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities.

Page 5-313

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.9-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (SK CDC 2014a). • Small-flowered sand-verbena, smooth arid goosefoot and buffalograss are expected to potentially occur within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion. However, the potential habitat for these species is low within the Bethune Station footprint. • Project activities at Bethune Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Bethune Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Bethune Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and were observed in the vicinity of the facility during previous field work (TERA Environmental Consultants 2013). If barn swallows are observed actively nesting within 100 m of the proposed construction activities, the nest will be subject to site-specific mitigation measures (i.e., clearly marked protective buffer around the nest and/or non-intrusive monitoring). Human Occupancy and • Bethune Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will occur on Resource Use previously disturbed or cultivated lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Bethune Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Dufferin No. 190. • Bethune Station is situated in the Regina-Moose Jaw WMZ 20. • Bethune Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Bethune Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Bethune Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Lands designated for construction within the existing Enbridge property have been disturbed as part of a previous application. Therefore, the potential for intact archaeological deposits in this area is negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to the Bethune Station. • Refer also to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Bethune Station is located in the RM of Dufferin No. 190 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Well-being Village of Bethune. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at Bethune Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Bethune Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Bethune Station during operations. • Noise levels at Bethune Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Bethune Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6).

Page 5-314

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.9-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and • Access to the Bethune Station will be via provincial Highway 11 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is only Services possible using existing Bethune Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Bethune Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • Bethune Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Navigation Safety Employment and • Participation rate in the labour force, employment and unemployment rates are not available due to the unavailability of data Economy or for confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.10 Rowatt Station The proposed Project activities at Rowatt Station include the construction of three motor units and interconnection work as well as sending and receiving traps at SW 33-16-19 W2M (Figure 2.4.1-10). Rowatt Station will be expanded to the east and south onto newly acquired lands to accommodate construction. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Rowatt Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.10-1.

TABLE 5.2.10-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ROWATT STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Rowatt Station lies within the Moose Mountain Upland Subdivision of the Saskatchewan Plains Physiographic Region Meteorological (Saskatchewan Soil Survey 1987). Environment • The Riding Mountain Formation underlies the Rowatt Station. This formation is composed of marine claystone and shale and is locally bentonitic and concretionary near the base (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes or landslides in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Odessa Station is gently undulating and the elevation is approximately 656 m asl. • The site encounters fine-grained sediments consisting predominately of silt and clay (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997). • Rowatt Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation of this ecoregion includes speargrasses, wheatgrasses, western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry and silverberry (SK CDC 2012b). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.3°C while the mean annual precipitation is 378.1 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Regina, located approximately 65 km northwest of Rowatt Station. Temperature variations range from 43.9°C to -47.2°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Existing soils information is available for the Rowatt Station property from site-specific soil investigations and mapping previously conducted by Mentiga in 2008. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3B. • Land use at Rowatt Station consists of both cultivated and disturbed lands. • Moderately-drained Vertic Dark Brown Chernozems developed on dark coloured glaciolacustrine clays (Regina soils) occur throughout the site. These soils are characterized by 12-17 cm of topsoil and have cracking and mass movement and severe disruption of horizons within 1 m of the surface. There is not a distinct topsoil horizon and colour differentiation between the topsoil and subsoil is extremely poor. These soils are susceptible to compaction and rutting due to their physical characteristics (i.e., very fine texture) (Appendix 3B).

Page 5-315 Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.10-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Soil and Soil Productivity • CLI (1970c) has rated the soils at Rowatt Station as Class 2 (soils that have moderate limitations in use for crops) and (cont’d) Class 3 (soils that have moderately severe limitations in use for crops). • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed an active site undergoing detailed testing at the Rowatt RCMP Detachment (Site 00022463), however, there are no listed contaminations within the station footprint (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed no listed oil spills from June 1990 to April 2013 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and • Rowatt Station is located within the Qu’Appelle River Basin. Quantity • Rowatt Station will be expanded to the east onto newly acquired lands not previously disturbed by industrial activity. • No work will occur within 30 m of any waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on surface water quality and quantity is not warranted, as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a) • There are no known springs in the vicinity of Rowatt Station. • There are no domestic wells within 500 m of Rowatt Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Rowatt Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Rowatt Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The nearest residence is located approximately 1,100 m east-northeast of the station and a second residence is located approximately 1,200 m northeast. • The Project scope at Rowatt Station includes the installation of electricity-driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work will also involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Rowatt Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Rowatt Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Rowatt Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Rowatt Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and from agricultural activities. • Rowatt Station is located approximately 2.6 km to the souteast of Highway 1 in Regina. The nearest residence is located approximately 1,100 m east-northeast of the station and a second residence is located approximately 1,200 m northeast. • A noise bylaw for the RM of Sherwood No. 159 was not available online or provided in hardcopy. It is unknown if a noise bylaw has yet been developed for RM of Sherwood No. 159. • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Rowatt Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 1,100 m is 35.5 dBA LeqNight and 36.5 dBA LeqNight for the residence at 1,200 m. Both residences are predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay. All other residential and theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). Fish and Fish Habitat • Rowatt Station is located within the Qu’Appelle River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Page 5-316

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.10-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations

Wetlands • Rowatt Station is located in the PCG Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCG Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • There are no wetlands within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. • The work at Rowatt Station will be conducted in an expansion area on newly acquired land on the south and east sides of the station. The newly acquired land is cultivated, and, therefore, the expansion is not anticipated to cause disturbance to wetlands. • Rowatt Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU Projects (DUC 2013b). • Rowatt Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Rowatt Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Rowatt Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Rowatt Station is located within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation of this ecoregion includes speargrasses, wheatgrasses, western snowberry, prickly rose, chokecherry and silverberry (SK CDC 2012b). • Project activities at Rowatt Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed, unvegetated industrial site or cultivated lands (i.e., non-native vegetation) which have been impacted by past agricultural land use and are not considered to be suitable for rare species. This boundary of this station will be expanded towards the east and south, however, the area of expansion is encroaching upon cultivated land. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database was conducted and two rare plants, prairie ragwort (Packera plattensis) (S3S4) and upright narrow-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton strictifolius) (S2), are known to occur within 5 km of Rowatt Station (SK CDC 2014a). Due to the industrial/cultivated (i.e., non-native vegetation) land use within the station area and the limited amount of native vegetation in the vicinity of the station, the potential for rare species habitat within the boundaries of and adjacent to the existing station is low. • Weeds of concern in the RM of Sherwood No. 159 include barley, Canada thistle, narrow-leaf fireweed, purple loosestrife and scentless chamomile (Benroth pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife • Rowatt Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan Habitat NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Rowatt Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Rowatt Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • The permanent facility expansion and construction activities at Rowatt Station will be conducted east and south of the facility on newly acquired cultivated land. Cultivated and disturbed land are not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat Species of Special Status is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (SK CDC 2014a). • Small-flowered sand-verbena, smooth arid goosefoot and buffalograss are expected to potentially occur within the Moist Mixed Grassland Ecoregion. However, the potential habitat for these species is low within the Rowatt Station footprint. • Project activities at Rowatt Station will occur within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Rowatt Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The permanent facility expansion and constructions activities at Rowatt Station will be conducted east and south of the facility on newly acquired cultivated land. Cultivated land and disturbed land are not considered to be suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at Rowatt Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at the facility site (SK CDC 2014a).

Page 5-317

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.10-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Occupancy and • Rowatt Station is situated on cultivated and previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities Resource Use will occur on previously disturbed or cultivated lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Rowatt Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Lajord No. 128. • Rowatt Station is situated in WMZ 18. • Rowatt Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Rowatt Station is situated on an existing industrial and cultivated site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Rowatt Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since Rowatt Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. • New lands designated for construction adjacent to the eastern boundary of the existing disturbance area, although located in an area of agricultural disturbance with low potential for intact surface or subsurface deposits, will be assessed for heritage resources. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Rowatt Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Rowatt Station is located in the RM of Sherwood No. 159 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the City Well-being of Regina. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at Rowatt Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Rowatt Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Bethune Station during operations. • Noise levels at Rowatt Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Rowatt Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to the Rowatt Station will be via provincial Highway 6 as well as municipal grid roads. Services • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Rowatt Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and Navigation • Rowatt Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Safety Employment and • Participation rate in the labour force, employment and unemployment rates are not available due to the unavailability of data Economy or for confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

Page 5-318

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.2.11 Odessa Station The proposed Project activities at Odessa Station include the construction of two motor units at SW 35- 15-14 W2M (Figure 2.4.1-11). NEB approval has been given for the expansion of Odessa Station onto undisturbed lands to the south of the station as part of a previous Enbridge application. This expansion area is considered as disturbed land for the Project. All work at Odessa Station associated with the Project will, therefore, be completed within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Odessa Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.11-1

TABLE 5.2.11-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ODESSA STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Odessa Station lies within the Moose Mountain Upland Subdivision of the Saskatchewan Plains Physiographic Region Meteorological (Saskatchewan Soil Survey 1987). Environment • The Riding Mountain Formation underlies Odessa Station. This formation is composed of marine claystone and shale and is locally bentonitic and concretionary near the base (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes or landslides in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Odessa Station is gently undulating and the elevation is approximately 656 m asl. • The site encounters fine-grained sediments consisting predominately of silt and clay (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997). • Odessa Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. The climate in the area is a humid continental climate characterised by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995, Padbury and Acton 1994). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.3°C while the mean annual precipitation is 378.1 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Regina, located approximately 65 km northwest of Odessa Station. Temperature variations range from 43.9°C to -47.2°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at Odessa Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed no listed oil spills from June 1990 to April 2013 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and • Odessa Station is located within the Qu’Appelle River Basin. Quantity • Activities at Odessa Station (SW 35-15-14 W2M) will be located in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Odessa Station. • There is one domestic well located within 500 m of Odessa Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Odessa Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Odessa Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The nearest residence is located approximately 300 m north-northeast of the station. • The Project scope at Odessa Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Odessa Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Odessa Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual.

Page 5-319

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.11-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Odessa Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Odessa Station are from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent roads and railway, and from agricultural activities. Highway 48 is located adjacent to the north boundary of Odessa Station. • Odessa Station is located approximately 4 km northwest of the Village of Odessa. The nearest residence is located approximately 300 m north-northwest of the station site. • Construction, operations and maintenance of the Project will be in compliance with the applicable county noise bylaw (i.e., Zoning Bylaw 2012-3) (RM of Francis 2012). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Odessa Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 300 m is 43.2 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 2 permissible sound levels of 45 dBA LeqNight and 55 dBA LeqDay. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Odessa Station is located within the Qu’Appelle River Basin • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Odessa Station is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: a Class IV wetland adjacent to the south station boundary at NW 26-15-14 W2M. • The work at Odessa Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. Therefore, additional disturbance of wetlands is not anticipated. • Odessa Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Odessa Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Odessa Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Odessa Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Odessa Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation in this ecoregion includes grassland landscape dotted by trembling aspen forests while the northern portion of the ecoregion has a more continuous cover of trembling aspen. Grasslands occupy the drier upper and south-facing slopes, while trembling aspen is found on the moist mid to lower north facing slopes (SK CDC 2012b). • Project activities at Odessa Station will occur within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site and is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database was conducted and two rare plants, common butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris) (S2S3) and white bog Adder’s-mouth orchid (Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda) (S1S2), are known to occur within 5 km of Odessa Station (SK CDC 2014a). Due to the industrial/cultivated (i.e., non-native vegetation) land use within the station area and the limited amount of native vegetation in the vicinity of the station, the potential for rare species habitat within the boundaries of and adjacent to the existing station is low. • The weed of concern in the RM of Francis No. 127 is leafy spurge (Baker pers. comm.).

Page 5-320

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.11-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife • Odessa Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan Habitat NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Odessa Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Odessa Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014). • The construction activities at Odessa Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species at Species of Special risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). Status • No plant species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern under SARA or COSEWIC are known to occur in the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of Saskatchewan (SK CDC 2008). • Project activities at Odessa Station will occur within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Odessa Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities of Odessa Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed, which is not considered suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and were observed in the vicinity of the facility during previous field work (TERA Environmental Consultants 2013). If barn swallows are observed actively nesting within 100 m of the proposed construction activities, the nest will be subject to site-specific mitigation measures (i.e., clearly marked protective buffer around the nest and/or non-intrusive monitoring). Human Occupancy and • Odessa Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will be limited Resource Use to the previously disturbed industrial lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Odessa Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Francis No. 127. • Odessa Station is situated in the WMZ 17. • Odessa Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Odessa Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Odessa Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since most of the Odessa Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to the Odessa Station. • Refer also to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Odessa Station is located in the RM of Francis No. 127 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Village Well-being of Odessa. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at Odessa Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated.

Page 5-321

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.11-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Odessa Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Odessa Station during operations. • Noise levels at Odessa Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Odessa Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to the Odessa Station will be via provincial Highways 48 and 35 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility Services is only possible using existing Odessa Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (refer to of Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Odessa Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • Odessa Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Navigation Safety Employment and • Participation rate in the labour force, employment and unemployment rate rates are not available due to the unavailability of Economy data or for confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.12 Glenavon Station The proposed Project activities at Glenavon Station include the construction of three motor units at W½ 22-14-9-W2M (Figure 2.4.1-12). All Project work will be completed within the existing facility boundaries on mostly previously disturbed land. However, areas of replaced topsoil may present at select locations within the pump station boundaries. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Glenavon Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.12-1.

Page 5-322

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.12-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR GLENAVON STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Glenavon Station lies within the Moose Mountain Upland Subdivision of the Saskatchewan Plains Physiographic Region Meteorological (Hart and Hunt 1981). Environment • The site is underlain by the Riding Mountain Formation composed of marine claystone and shale, and is locally bentonitic and concretionary near the base (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost within the area of Glenavon Station (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Glenavon Station is generally flat and the elevation is approximately 678 m asl. • The site is located on glacial till consisting of an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, cobbles and boulders (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997). • Glenavon Station is located within the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 3.5°C while the mean annual precipitation is 418.8 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Weyburn, located approximately 75 km south of Glenavon Station. Temperature variations range from 41.7°C to -42.2°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at Glenavon Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site in a previously disturbed area. However, areas of replaced topsoil may be present at select locations. • No soil investigations have been conducted at Glenavon Station. Soil investigations will be completed prior to construction to determine if there is any salvageable topsoil material within the area to be disturbed. • The station is situated in an area where Orthic Black Chernozems with up to 30 cm of topsoil and developed on loam to clay loam textured till (Oxbow soils) occur in well to moderately well-drained positions of the landscape, while poorly-drained areas consist of saline Rego Humic Gleysols with about 30 cm of topsoil and developed on silty clay loam to clay textured glaciolacustrine material (saline Osborne soils) (Appendix 3B). • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed one listed spill in 2002 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d). Water Quality and • Glenavon Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. Quantity • Three wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Glenavon Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Glenavon Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Glenavon Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Glenavon Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • Glenavon Station is located 1.5 km southwest of Glenavon. There are 6 residences within 1,500 m of the station, the nearest residence is located approximately 160 m south of the site. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Glenavon Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Glenavon Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Glenavon Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Glenavon Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5).

Page 5-323

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.12-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Glenavon Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and from agricultural activities. • Glenavon Station is located 1.5 km southwest of Glenavon. There are six residents in the Acoustic Environment LSA. The nearest residences are located approximately 160 m south of the site. • A noise bylaw for the RM of Chester No. 125 was not available online or provided in hardcopy. It is unknown if a noise bylaw has yet been developed for the RM of Chester No. 125. • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Glenavon Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 160 m is 41.1 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be above the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay. All other residential and theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. Additionally, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Glenavon Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Glenavon Station is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • Three wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: one Class V wetland crossing the east station boundary at SW 22-14-9 W2M; one shrubby swamp adjacent to the west station boundary at SE 21-14-9 W2M and one Class I/II wetland crossing the west station boundary at SW 22-14-9 W2M. • The work at Glenavon Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries, and primarily on previously disturbed lands. Additional disturbance of wetlands is not anticipated. • Glenavon Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects(DUC 2013b). • Glenavon Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Glenavon Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Glenavon Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Glenavon Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation in this ecoregion includes grassland landscape dotted by trembling aspen forests while the northern portion of the ecoregion has a more continuous cover of trembling aspen. Grasslands occupy the drier upper and south-facing slopes, while trembling aspen is found on the moist mid to lower north facing slopes (SK CDC 2012b). • Aerial imagery shows that there is a wetland with moderate rare plant potential within the northeastern boundary of the station, however, Project activities at Glenavon Station will be conducted in the south portion of the station, within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site. Consequently, a vegetation survey is not warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database did not indicate any rare plant species within 5 km of Glenavon Station (SK CDC 2014a). • Weeds of concern in the RM of Chester No. 125 include leafy spurge and scentless chamomile (Hoff pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife • Glenavon Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan Habitat NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Glenavon Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Glenavon Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Glenavon Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (SK CDC 2014a).

Page 5-324

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.12-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • No plant species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern under SARA or COSEWIC are known to occur in the Species of Special Status Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of Saskatchewan (SK CDC 2008). (cont’d) • Project activities at Glenavon Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site and it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of Glenavon Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Glenavon Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable habitat for wildlife species of special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011), however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (SK CDC 2014a). Human Occupancy and • Glenavon Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will be Resource Use limited to the previously disturbed industrial lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Glenavon Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Chester No. 125. • Glenavon Station is situated in the WMZ 17. • Glenavon Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Glenavon Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Glenavon Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since most of Glenavon Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Glenavon Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Glenavon Station is located in the RM of Chester No. 125 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Well-being Village of Glenavon. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at Glenavon Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with the construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Glenavon Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Glenavon Station during operations. • Noise levels at Glenavon Station may increase during operations and are predicted to be above ERCB Directive 038 guidelines. The environmental noise impact assessment at Glenavon recommends supplemental noise monitoring at the nearest residential receptors once the Project is commissioned in order to determine if further mitigation is necessary to ensure compliance with ERCB Directive 038 (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to Glenavon Station will be via provincial Highway 48 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is only Services possible using existing Glenavon Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, and health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Glenavon Station and short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • Glenavon Station is not located in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable watercourse or wetland, however, it is Navigation Safety adjacent to a potentially navigable wetland (SK-550).

Page 5-325

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.12-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Employment and • In 2011, the Village of Glenavon had a 78.1% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 68.8% and an Economy unemployment rate of 0.0% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.13 Langbank Station The proposed Project activities at Langbank Station include construction of two motor units at S ½ 2-13- 3 W2M (Figure 2.4.1-13). NEB approval has been given for the expansion of Langbank Station onto undisturbed lands to the west of the station as part of a previous Enbridge application. This expansion area is considered as disturbed land for the Project. All work at Langbank Station associated with the Project will be conducted within the facility boundaries. Some activities will occur on an area previously undisturbed by industrial development. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Langbank Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.13-1.

TABLE 5.2.13-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR LANGBANK STATION

Environmental and Socio- Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Langbank Station lies within the Moose Mountain Upland Section of the Saskatchewan Plains Physiographic Region Meteorological Environment (Saskatchewan Soil Survey 1987). • The Riding Mountain Formation underlies the Langbank Station. This formation is composed of marine claystone and shale, and is locally bentonitic and concretionary near the base (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1999). • There are no areas of permafrost within the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes or landslides in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Langbank Station is level and the elevation is approximately 660 m asl. • The site encounters glacial till consisting of unsorted mixtures of boulders, gravel, sand, silt and clay (Saskatchewan Energy and Mines 1997). • Langbank Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. The climate in this area is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995, Padbury and Acton 1994). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2°C while the mean annual precipitation is 461.3 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Kipling, located approximately 30 km east of Langbank Station. Temperature variations range from 38.3°C to -44.4°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Existing soils information is available for Langbank Station from site-specific soil investigations and mapping previously conducted by Mentiga in May 2013. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3B. • Land use at Langbank Station consists of both hay and disturbed lands. • Well to moderately well-drained Orthic and Rego Black Chernozems developed on slightly to moderately stony, loam to clay loam textured till (Oxbow soils) occur throughout the expansion area. These soils are characterized by 12-38 cm of black to very dark brown, loam textured topsoil overlying yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown, loam to clay loam textured upper subsoil (Bm horizon) and light olive brown to olive brown, loam to clay loam textured lower subsoil (Ck horizon). Occasionally the Bm horizon is absent. Topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour and these soils are non-saline and non-sodic to the 1.2 m depth (Appendix 3B). • CLI (1970c) has rated the soils at Langbank Station as Class 2 (soils that have moderate limitations in use for crops), Class 3 (soils that have moderately severe limitations in use for crops) and Class 5 (soils that have very severe limitations that restrict their capability to producing forage crops and improvement practices are feasible. • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). A search of the Saskatchewan Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database revealed no listed oil spills from June 1990 to April 2013 (Government of Saskatchewan 2013d).

Page 5-326

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.13-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio- Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Water Quality and Quantity • Langbank Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. • Tie-in work at Langbank Station (SW 2-13-3 W2M) will be located in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application. All work at Langbank Station associated with the Project will be completed within the facility boundaries, however, some activities will occur on an area previously undisturbed by industrial development. • Two wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Langbank Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Langbank Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Langbank Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Langbank Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • Langbank Station is located approximately 800 m west of the Hamlet of Langbank. The nearest residence outside of the hamlet is 1,100 m northeast of the site. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Langbank Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amount s of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Langbank Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Langbank Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Langbank Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Langbank Station are from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent roads and railways, and from equipment used for farming. • Langbank Station is located approximately 800 m west of the Hamlet of Langbank. The nearest residence outside of the hamlet is 1,100 m northeast of the site. • Construction, operations and maintenance of the Project will be in compliance with the applicable municipal bylaw pertaining to noise (i.e., Bylaw No. 5-07) (RM of Silverwood No. 123 2007). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Langbank Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 1,000 m is 43.2 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 2 permissible sound levels of 48 dBA LeqNight and 58 dBA LeqDay. All other residential and theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Langbank Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Page 5-327

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.13-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio- Economic Elements Summary of Considerations

Wetlands • Langbank Station is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Saskatchewan in Section 5.1.8.1. • Two wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: one shrubby swamp adjacent to the north station boundary at SW 2-13-3 W2M and one Class III wetland adjacent to the north station boundary at SW 2-13-3 W2M. • The work at Langbank Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries, and primarily in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. Additionally, some work will be conducted on lands used for hay production. Therefore additional disturbance of wetlands is not anticipated. • Langbank Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Langbank Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Langbank Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Langbank Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially-identified parks, ecological reserves, WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). Vegetation • Langbank Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairies Ecozone. Characteristic natural vegetation in this ecoregion includes grassland landscape dotted by trembling aspen forests while the northern portion of the ecoregion has a more continuous cover of trembling aspen. Grasslands occupy the drier upper and south-facing slopes, while trembling aspen is found on the moist mid to lower north facing slopes (SK CDC 2012b). • Project activities at Langbank Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some hay areas (i.e., non-native vegetation) and is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the SK CDC database was conducted and two rare plants, prairie dunewort (Botrychium campestre) (S1) and tall beggar’s-ticks (Bidens frondosa) (S2S3), are known to occur within 5 km of Langbank Station (SK CDC 2014a). Due to the industrial/cultivated (i.e., non-native vegetation) land use within the station area and the limited amount of native vegetation in the vicinity of the station, the potential for rare species habitat within the boundaries of and adjacent to the existing station is low. • Weeds of concern in the RM of Silverwood No. 123 include tansy, leafy spurge and scentless chamomile (Beutler pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Langbank Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Langbank Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Langbank Station is not located within or adjacent to any WHPA or AAFC-CPP lands (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Langbank Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land t and on an area of hay land. Disturbed land and hay land are not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or Species • Langbank Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. of Special Status • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (SK CDC 2014a). • No plant species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern under SARA or COSEWIC are known to occur in the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of Saskatchewan (SK CDC 2008). • Project activities at Langbank Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site and the site it is not considered to be suitable for rare plant species at risk. • A search of the SK CDC reported barn swallow (Threatened by COSEWIC), northern leopard frog (Special Concern under SARA Schedule 1 and by COSEWIC) and tiger salamander (Special Concern by COSEWIC) within 2 km of the Langbank Station (SK CDC 2014a). • The construction activities at Langbank Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on land that will have been previously disturbed and on an area of hay land, which is not considered to be suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at Langbank Station. If barn swallows are observed actively nesting within 100 m of the proposed construction activities, the nest will be subject to site-specific mitigation measures (i.e., clearly marked protective buffer around the nest and/or non-intrusive monitoring). Human Occupancy and • Langbank Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will occur on Resource Use previously disturbed or hay lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Langbank Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Silverwood No. 123. • Langbank Station is situated in the WMZ 34.

Page 5-328

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.13-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio- Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Occupancy and • Langbank Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial Resource Use (cont’d) or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan 2013a,b). • Langbank Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Langbank Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since most of the Langbank Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. • Lands designated for construction in the western portion of the existing Enbridge property have been disturbed as part of a previous application. Therefore, the potential for intact archaeological deposits in this area is negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, [] Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to the Langbank Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Langbank Station is located in the RM of Silverwood No. 123 and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Well-being Town of Kipling. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at Langbank Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Langbank Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Langbank Station during operations. • Noise levels at Langbank Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at Langbank Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and Services • Access to Langbank Station will be via provincial Highways 9 and 48 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is only possible using existing Langbank Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Langbank Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and Navigation • Langbank Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Safety Employment and Economy • In 2011, the Town of Kipling had a 64.2% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 58.4% and an unemployment rate of 8.1% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.14 Cromer Terminal The proposed Project activities at the Cromer Terminal include the construction of three motor units and new sending and receiving traps at NE 17-9-28 WPM and SE 20-9-28 WPM (Figure 2.4.1-14). All Project work will be completed within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Cromer Terminal pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.14-1.

Page 5-329

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.14-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR CROMER TERMINAL

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • The Cromer Terminal lies within the Souris Plain Subdivision of the Western Upland Physiographic Division (Barto and Meteorological Vogel 1978). Environment • The site is underlain by the Coulter Member of the Riding Mountain Formation. The Coulter Member is characterized by soft grey bentonitic clayey siltstone and shale (Manitoba Department of Energy and Mines 1980). • There are no areas of permafrost within the area of the Cromer Terminal (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of the Cromer Terminal is level and the elevation is approximately 486 m asl. • The site is located on glacial till composed of calcareous clay diamicton, predominantly derived from Mesozoic shale from above the Manitoba escarpment (Manitoba Geological Survey 2006a). • The Cromer Terminal is located within the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.8°C while the mean annual precipitation is 474.3 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Virden, located approximately 25 km northeast of Cromer Terminal. Temperature variations range from 43.3°C to -44.4°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at the Cromer Terminal will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on-site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). The Manitoba Contaminated Sites List revealed no listed spills in the vicinity of the site (Government of Manitoba 2013b). Water Quality and • The Cromer Terminal is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. Quantity • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of Cromer Terminal. • A drainage channel is located within the southwest portion of the Cromer Terminal. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of the Cromer Terminal. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at the Cromer Terminal include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of the Cromer Terminal are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • The Cromer Terminal is located approximately 2 km north of Cromer, Manitoba. The nearest residence is located approximately 400 m south of the site. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at the Cromer Terminal includes installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, new sending and receiving traps, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at the Cromer Terminal include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at the Cromer Terminal will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at the Cromer Terminal includes the installation of crude oil pump units, new sending and receiving traps, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works which are not GHG intensive or do not involve emissions at all. • The Project scope at the Cromer Terminal includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5).

Page 5-330

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.14-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding the Cromer Terminal are from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent roads and railways, and from equipment used for farming. • The Cromer Terminal is located approximately 2 km north of Cromer, Manitoba. The nearest residence is located approximately 400 m south of the site. • Construction, operations and maintenance of the Project will be in compliance with the applicable county noise bylaw (i.e., By- Law 11/92) (RM of Pipestone 1992). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for the Cromer Terminal by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 400 m is 44.2 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 2 permissible sound levels of 45 dBA LeqNight and 55 dBA LeqDay. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re-used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • The Cromer Terminal is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • The Cromer Terminal is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Manitoba in Section 5.1.8.1. • One wetland occurs within 30 m of the existing terminal boundaries: a Class I/II wetland adjacent to the east station boundary at SE 20-9-28 WPM. • The work at Cromer Terminal will be conducted within the existing terminal boundaries on previously disturbed lands. Additional disturbance of wetlands is not anticipated. • Cromer Terminal is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Cromer Terminal is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Manitoba Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Cromer Terminal is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Cromer Terminal is not located within or adjacent to any provincially identified parks, ecological reserves, wildlife areas, wildlife management areas or conservation agreements in Manitoba (Manitoba Protected Area Initiative 2012, MCWS 2013). Vegetation • The Cromer Terminal is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. In its native state, the landscape was characterised by trembling aspen stands, bur oak forests, mixed tall shrubs and intermittent fescue species grasslands, but, most of the lands have been broken or cleared for agricultural purposes. Remnants of native vegetation exist on Crown land or on soils unsuitable for farming and some pastures and hay lands contain elements of native species. Poorly-drained, gleysolic soils near wetlands support willow and sedge species (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • Project activities at the Cromer Terminal will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some areas of vegetation that have been heavily disturbed by industrial activities (i.e., non-native vegetation) and is not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the MB CDC database was conducted and three rare plants, golden-bean (Thermopsis rhombifolia) (S2), narrow- leaved milk-vetch (Astragalus pectinatus) (S2S3) and shining-leaved arnica (Arnica fulgens) (S2) are known to occur within 5 km of the Cromer Terminal (Enbridge 2013a). Due to the industrial land use, cultivated land within the terminal Footprint and the largely modified vegetation (i.e., non-native vegetation) in the vicinity of the terminal, the potential habitat for rare species adjacent to the terminal is low. • The weed of concern in the RM of Pipestone is leafy spurge (Greggor pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife • The Cromer Terminal is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Manitoba Habitat Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • The Cromer Terminal is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • The Cromer Terminal is not located within or adjacent to any Parks and Natural, Wildlife Management Areas, Manitoba’s Network of Protected Areas (MCWS 2013, Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative 2012). • Construction activities at the Cromer Terminal will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbance of wildlife or wildlife habitat is expected to occur as a result of the construction activities.

Page 5-331

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.14-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species at Species of Special risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). Status • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the terminal (Enbridge 2014a). • Hairy prairie clover, rough agalinis, small white lady’s-slipper, smooth arid goosefoot and western spiderwort are expected to potentially occur along the replacement pipeline route in the Manitoba Aspen Parkland Ecoregion (MB CDC 2013b). • The proposed construction activities at the Cromer Terminal will be installed on an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site, which is not considered suitable habitat for plant species with special conservation status. • A search of the MB CDC database reported observations of loggerhead shrike (Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC; Endangered under Manitoba’s Endangered Species Act) within 2 km of the Cromer Terminal (Enbridge 2014a). Barn swallow (Threatened by COSEWIC) was identified in previous projects in the vicinity of the Cromer Terminal. • Construction activities at the Cromer Terminal will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable habitat for wildlife species of special conservation status. • Barn swallows use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at the Cromer Terminal. If barn swallows are observed actively nesting within 100 m of the proposed construction activities, the nest will be subject to site-specific mitigation measures (i.e., clearly marked protective buffer around the nest and/or non-intrusive monitoring). Human Occupancy and • The Cromer Terminal is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will occur Resource Use on previously disturbed or hay lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. The Cromer Terminal is located on lands administered by the RM of Pipestone. The terminal lands have been zoned as Heavy Industrial. Surrounding lands are zoned as Agricultural (RM of Pipestone 2001). The proposed Project activities are compatible with zoning at this site. • The Cromer Terminal is situated in the Game Hunting Area 27 (Manitoba Department of Conservation 2000). • The Cromer Terminal does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Manitoba Department of Conservation 2011, Manitoba Innovation, Energy and Mines 2012a,b,c). • The Cromer Terminal is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the terminal. • Project activities at the Cromer Terminal will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since Cromer Terminal is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline corridor to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the project to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to the Cromer Terminal. • Refer also to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • The Cromer Terminal is located in the RM of Pipestone and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Town of Well-being Virden. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at the Cromer Terminal will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Cromer Terminal. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at the Cromer Terminal during operations. • Noise levels at the Cromer Terminal during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at the Cromer Terminal does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6).

Page 5-332

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.14-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and • Access to the Cromer Terminal will be via provincial Highways 256 and 255 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the Services facility is only possible using existing Cromer Terminal access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at the Cromer Terminal and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • The Cromer Terminal is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Navigation Safety Employment and • In 2011, the Town of Virden had a 66.3% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 64.3% and an Economy unemployment rate of 3.4% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.15 West Souris Station Proposed project activities at West Souris Station include construction of two motor units at E ½ 16-8- 21 WPM (Figure 2.4.1-15). NEB approval has been given for the expansion of West Souris Station onto undisturbed lands to the south of the station as part of a previous Enbridge application. This expansion area is considered as disturbed land for the Project. All work at West Souris Station associated with the Project will be conducted within the facility boundaries, however, some activities will occur on an area previously undisturbed by industrial development. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for West Souris Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.15-1.

TABLE 5.2.15-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR WEST SOURIS STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • West Souris Station lies within the Lake Souris Plain Subdivision of the Western Upland Physiographic Division (Barto and Meteorological Vogel 1978). Environment • The Riding Mountain Formation underlies the West Souris Station. This formation is composed of marine claystone and shale and is locally bentonitic and concretionary near the base (Manitoba Department of Energy and Mines 1980). • There are no areas of permafrost in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes or landslides in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of West Souris Station is undulating to rolling, to hilly and the elevation is approximately 600 m asl. • West Souris Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. The climate in this area is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The site encounters course, medium and fine textured lacustrine deposits (Barto and Vogel 1978). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.5°C while the mean annual precipitation is 516.2 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Souris, with temperature variations that range from 38°C to -45°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Existing soils information is available for West Souris Station from site-specific soil investigations and mapping previously conducted by Mentiga in May 2013. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3B. • Land use at West Souris Station consists of both cultivated and disturbed lands. • Well-drained Calcareous and Rego Black Chernozems developed on stone-free, sandy loam to loamy fine sand textured glaciofluvial material (Scarth soils) occur throughout the expansion area. These soils are characterized by 20-38 cm of black to very dark brown, sandy loam textured topsoil overlying a yellowish brown, fine sandy loam textured upper subsoil (Bmk horizon) and grayish brown to pale brown, fine sandy loam to loamy fine sand textured lower subsoil (Cca or Ck horizon). Occasionally the Bmk horizon is absent. Topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour and these soils are non- saline and non-sodic but moderately to strongly calcareous (Appendix 3B).

Page 5-333

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.15-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Soil and Soil Productivity • Scarth soils that occur in low-lying landscape positions are imperfectly-drained and exhibit mottling and gleying features in (cont’d) the subsoil. Some of the gleyed Scarth soils were under water at the time of soil investigations. It is anticipated that the gleyed Scarth soil areas will dry-up as the year progresses. • CLI (1970c) has rated the soils at West Souris Station as Class 3 (soils that have moderately severe limitations in use for crops). • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on-site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). The Manitoba Contaminated Sites List revealed one spill from Enbridge at NE 16-8-21 WPM (File No. 8977) (Government of Manitoba 2013b). Water Quality and • West Souris Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. Quantity • Tie-in work at West Souris Station (SE 16-8-21 WPM) is located in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application. All work at West Souris Station associated with the Project will be completed within the facility boundaries, however, some activities will occur on an area previously undisturbed by industrial development. • Four wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. There are no known springs in the vicinity of West Souris Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of West Souris Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at West Souris Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of West Souris Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • West Souris Station is located approximately 3.5 km north of the Town of Souris. The nearest residence is located 500 m south of the station. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at West Souris Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at West Souris Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at West Souris Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at West Souris Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding West Souris Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and from equipment used for farming. • West Souris Station is located approximately 3.5 km north of the Town of Souris. The nearest residence is located 500 m south of the station. • A noise bylaw for the RM of Glenwood was not available online or provided in hardcopy. It is unknown if a noise bylaw has yet been developed for the RM of Glenwood. • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for West Souris Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 500 m is 43.4 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 2 permissible sound levels of 45 dBA LeqNight and 55 dBA LeqDay. All other residential and theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re- used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted.

Page 5-334

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.15-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Fish and Fish Habitat • West Souris Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • West Souris Station is located in the PCG Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCG Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Manitoba in Section 5.1.8.1. • Four wetlands are located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: one Class II wetland adjacent to the east station boundary at SE 16-8-21 WPM; one shrubby swamp adjacent to the east station boundary at NW 15-8-21 WPM, one treed swamp adjacent to the east station boundary at SW 15-8-21 WPM and one Class I/II wetland adjacent to the south station boundary at SE 16-8-21 WPM. • The work at West Souris Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries, and primarily in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. Therefore additional disturbance to wetlands is not anticipated. • West Souris Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • West Souris Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Manitoba Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • West Souris Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • West Souris Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially identified parks, ecological reserves, wildlife areas, wildlife management areas or conservation agreements in Manitoba (Manitoba Protected Area Initiative 2012, MCWS 2013). Vegetation • West Souris Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. In its native state, the landscape was characterised by trembling aspen stands, bur oak forests, mixed tall shrubs and intermittent fescue species grasslands, however, most of the lands have been broken or cleared for agricultural purposes. Remnants of native vegetation exist on Crown land or on soils unsuitable for farming and some pastures and hay lands contain elements of native species. Poorly-drained, gleysolic soils near wetlands support willow and sedge species (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • Project activities at West Souris Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas (i.e., non-native vegetation), which are not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the MB CDC database did not indicate any rare plant species within 5 km of the West Souris Station (Enbridge 2014a). • Weeds of concern in the RM of Glenwood include leafy spurge, silky milkweed, ox-eye daisy, scentless chamomile and purple loosestrife (Lewis pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife • West Souris Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Manitoba Habitat Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • West Souris Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • West Souris Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks and Natural, Wildlife Management Areas, Manitoba’s Network of Protected Areas (MCWS 2013, Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative 2012). • The construction activities at West Souris Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). Status • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (Enbridge 2014a). • Hairy prairie clover, rough agalinis, small white lady’s-slipper, smooth arid goosefoot and western spiderwort are expected to potentially occur along the replacement pipeline route in the Manitoba Aspen Parkland Ecoregion (MB CDC 2013b). • The proposed construction activities at the West Souris Station will be installed on an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas, which are not considered suitable habitat for plant species with special conservation status. • A search of the MB CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of West Souris Station (Enbridge 2014a). • During previous field work, Sprague’s pipit (Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) was observed within 2 km of the facility (TERA Environmental Consultants 2013). • The construction activities at West Souris Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status.

Page 5-335

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.15-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Species at Risk or • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at West Souris Species of Special Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (Enbridge 2014a). Status (cont’d) Human Occupancy and • West Souris Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will be Resource Use limited to the previously disturbed industrial lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. West Souris Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Glenwood. • West Souris Station is situated in the Game Hunting Area 28. • West Souris Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Manitoba Department of Conservation 2011, Manitoba Innovation, Energy and Mines 2012a,b,c). • West Souris Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at West Souris Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since West Souris Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline router to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to West Souris Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • West Souris Station is located in the RM of Glenwood and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Town of Well-being Souris. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at the West Souris Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated. Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at West Souris Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at West Souris Station during operations. • Noise levels at West Souris Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines and, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at West Souris Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to the West Souris Station will be via provincial Highways 250 and 2 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the Services facility is only possible using existing West Souris Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at West Souris Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • West Souris Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Navigation Safety Employment and • In 2011, the Town of Souris had a 65.6% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 62.0% and an Economy unemployment rate of 5.4% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

Page 5-336

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.2.16 Glenboro Station The proposed Project activities at Glenboro Station include the construction of three motor units at SE 3- 7-14 WPM (Figure 2.4.1-16). All Project work will be completed within the existing facility boundaries. While most of Glenboro Station consists of a disturbed industrial site, some work associated with the Project will be conducted in the southern portion of station on lands not previously disturbed by industrial activity. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Glenboro Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.16-1.

TABLE 5.2.16-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR GLENBORO STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Glenboro Station lies within the Upper Assiniboine Delta Subdivision of the Western Upland Physiographic Division (Barto Meteorological and Vogel 1978). Environment • The site is underlain by the Morden, Boyne and Pembina Members of the Vermilion River Formation. The Morden Member consists of black, carbonaceous shale; the Boyne Member consists of calcareous and carbonaceous shale; and the Pembina Member consists of calcareous shale and bentonite (Manitoba Department of Energy and Mines 1980). • There are no areas of permafrost within the area of Glenboro Station (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented landslides or major earthquakes in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Glenboro Station is level and the elevation is approximately 373 m asl. • The site is located on distal glaciofluvial sediments composed of fine sand, minor gravel, thin silt and clay interbeds and subaqueous outwash fans, deposited in glacial Lake Agassiz by meltwater turbidity currents. The materials are commonly reshaped by wave erosion and reworked by wind (Manitoba Geological Survey 2006b). • Glenboro Station is located within the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 1.9°C while the mean annual precipitation is 472 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Brandon, located approximately 60 km northwest of Glenboro Station. Temperature variations range from 38.5°C to -45.6°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Existing soils information is available for most of Glenboro Station from site-specific soil investigations and mapping previously conducted by Mentiga. Additional soil investigations will be conducted prior to construction in areas not previously surveyed. Descriptions of soils previously encountered soils at the Station are provided in Appendix 3B. • Land use at Glenboro Station consists of disturbed and hay lands. • Well to moderately well Orthic Black Chernozems developed on stone-free, loam to silty clay loam textured glaciolacustrine material (Glenboro [GBO] soils) occurs to the west of the proposed pump station expansion. Topsoil thickness varies from 22-25 cm and topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour (Appendix 3B). • CLI (1966a) has rated the soils at Glenboro Station as Class 4 (soils that have severe limitations that restrict the range of crops or require special conservation practices, or both). • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on-site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). The Manitoba Contaminated Sites List revealed one spill from Enbridge at SE 3-7-14 WPM (File No. 19349) (Government of Manitoba 2013b). Water Quality and • Glenboro Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. Quantity • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. • There are no known springs in the vicinity of Glenboro Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Glenboro Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Glenboro Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Glenboro Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • Glenboro Station is located approximately 1.6 km south of the Village of Glenboro. The nearest residences are located approximately 355 m northwest, 530 m southeast and 640 m southeast from the station. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Glenboro Station includes the installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Glenboro Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Glenboro Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual.

Page 5-337

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.16-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Glenboro Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Glenboro Station are from vehicle and air traffic on adjacent roads and the Glenboro Airfield, and from equipment used for farming. • Glenboro Station is located approximately 1.6 km south of the Village of Glenboro. There are several residences located within the Acoustic Environment LSA. The nearest residences are located approximately 355 m northwest, 530 m southeast and 640 m southeast from the station. • There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in the RM of South Cypress (Plaetinck pers. comm.) • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Glenboro Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residences at 355 m, 530 m and 640 m are 39.9, 40.8 and 39.5 dBA LeqNight respectively. The residence at 530 m is predicted to be above the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay. All other residential and theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re- used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Glenboro Station is located within the Assiniboine River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Glenboro Station is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Manitoba in Section 5.1.8.1. • One wetland is located within 30 m of the existing station boundaries: a Class III wetland adjacent to the north station boundary at NW 3-7-14 WPM. • The work at Glenboro Station will be conducted within the existing terminal boundaries, on previously disturbed lands and cultivated lands. Additional disturbance of wetlands is not anticipated. • Glenboro Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Glenboro Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Manitoba Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Glenboro Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013bc. • Glenboro Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially identified parks, ecological reserves, wildlife areas, wildlife management areas or conservation agreements in Manitoba (Manitoba Protected Area Initiative 2012, MCWS 2013). Vegetation • Glenboro Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. In its native state, the landscape was characterised by trembling aspen stands, bur oak forests, mixed tall shrubs and intermittent fescue species grasslands, however, most of the lands have been broken or cleared for agricultural purposes. Remnants of native vegetation exist on Crown land or on soils unsuitable for farming and some pastures and hay lands contain elements of native species. Poorly-drained, gleysolic soils near wetlands support willow and sedge species (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • Project activities at Glenboro Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with areas of cultivation (i.e., non-native vegetation) which are not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the MB CDC database was conducted and three rare plants hairy prairie clover (Dalea villosa var. villosa) (S2S3), porcupine sedge (Carex hystericina) (S3?) and Schweinitz’s flatsedge (Cyperus schweinitzii) (S2), are known to occur within 5 km of Glenboro Station (Enbridge 2014a). Due to the industrial/cultivated (i.e., non-native vegetation) land use within the station area and the limited amount of native vegetation in the vicinity of the station, the potential for rare species habitat within the boundaries of and adjacent to the existing station is low. • Weeds of concern in the RM of South Cypress include leafy spurge, downy brome, scentless chamomile and tansy (Johnson pers. comm.).

Page 5-338

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.16-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife • Glenboro Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Manitoba Habitat Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Glenboro Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Glenboro Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks and Natural, Wildlife Management Areas, Manitoba’s Network of Protected Areas (MCWS 2013, Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative 2012). • The construction activities at Glenboro Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land and cultivated land, which are not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • A search of the Manitoba CDC database indicated one plant species with special conservation, hairy prairie clover (Dalea villosa var. villosa ) listed as of Special Concern by COSEWIC and Threatened by SARA, within 5 km of the Glenboro Station (Enbridge 2014a). • Hairy prairie clover, rough agalinis, small white lady’s-slipper, smooth arid goosefoot and western spiderwort are expected to potentially occur along the replacement pipeline route in the Manitoba Aspen Parkland Ecoregion (MB CDC 2013b). • The proposed construction activities at the Glenboro Station will be conducted on an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with cultivated areas, which is not considered suitable habitat for plant species with special conservation status. • A search of the MB CDC database indicated two wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of the facility; bobolink (Threatened by COSEWIC) and tiger salamander (Special Concern by COSEWIC) (Enbridge 2014a). • The construction activities at Glenboro Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land and cultivated land, which is not considered suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at Glenboro Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (Enbridge 2014a). Human Occupancy and • Glenboro Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will be limited Resource Use to the previously disturbed industrial lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Glenboro Station is located on lands administered by the RM of South Cypress. • Glenboro Station is situated in the Game Hunting Area 31. • Glenboro Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Manitoba Department of Conservation 2011, Manitoba Innovation, Energy and Mines 2012a,b,c). • Glenboro Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Glenboro Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since Glenboro Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site where most of the topsoil has been stripped, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Glenboro Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Glenboro Station is located in the RM of South Cypress and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Village Well-being of Glenboro. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at the Glenboro Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated.

Page 5-339

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.16-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Glenboro Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Glenboro Station during operations. • Noise levels at Glenboro Station may increase during operations and are predicted to be above ERCB Directive 038 guidelines. The environmental noise impact assessment at Glenboro Station recommends supplemental noise monitoring at the nearest residential receptors once the Project is commissioned in order to determine if further mitigation is necessary to ensure compliance with ERCB Directive 038 (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to Glenboro Station will be via provincial Highway 5 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is only Services possible using existing Glenboro Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Glenboro Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and • Glenboro Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Navigation Safety Employment and • In 2011, the Village of Glenboro had a 62.5% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 57.7% and an Economy unemployment rate of 7.7% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.17 St. Leon Station The proposed Project activities at St. Leon Station include the construction of three motor units at SW 33-4-9 WPM (Figure 2.4.1-17). NEB approval has been given for the expansion of St. Leon Station onto undisturbed lands to the south and east of the station as part of a previous Enbridge application. This expansion area is considered as disturbed land for the Project. All work at St. Leon Station associated with the Project will, therefore, be completed within the facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for St. Leon Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.17-1.

Page 5-340

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.17-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR ST. LEON STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • St. Leon Station lies within the Pembina Mountain Subdivision of the Western Upland Physiographic Division (Barto and Meteorological Vogel 1978). Environment • The Riding Mountain Formation underlies St. Leon Station. This formation is composed of marine claystone and shale and is locally bentonitic and concretionary near the base (Manitoba Department of Energy and Mines 1980). • There are no areas of permafrost within the area of St. Leon Station (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes or landslides in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of St. Leon Station is level and the elevation is approximately 485 m asl. • The site encounters ground and end moraine with alluvial deposits (Barto and Vogel 1978). • St. Leon Station is located within the Lake Manitoba Plain Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. The climate in this ecoregion is one of the warmest and most humid regions in the Canadian prairies, transitioning between boreal forest to the north and aspen parkland to the southwest (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 2.2°C while the mean annual precipitation is 563 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Brandon, located approximately 100 km southeast of St. Leon Station. Temperature variations range from 38.5°C to -45.6°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Activities at St. Leon Station will be conducted within an existing fenced industrial site lacking topsoil and, therefore, detailed soil information is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). The Manitoba Contaminated Sites List revealed no listed spills in the vicinity of the site (Government of Manitoba 2013b). Water Quality and • St. Leon Station is located within the Red River Basin. Quantity • Construction activity at St. Leon Station (SW 33-4-9 WPM) will be located in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on surface water quality and quantity is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • There are no known springs in the vicinity of St. Leon Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of St. Leon Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at St. Leon Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of St. Leon Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • St. Leon Station is located approximately 3.6 km southwest of the Hamlet of St. Leon. The nearest residence is located 1,200 m northeast of the site. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at St. Leon Station includes the installation installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual. GHG Emissions • The Project scope at St. Leon Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5).

Page 5-341

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.17-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding St. Leon Station are from vehicle traffic on adjacent roads and from equipment used for farming. • St. Leon Station is located approximately 3.6 km southwest of the Hamlet of St. Leon. The nearest residence is located 1,200 m northeast of the site. • The Manitoba Hydro electric substation located immediately north of St. Leon Station, does not contribute to the noise climate surrounding the Enbridge station. • Construction, operations and maintenance of the Project will be in compliance with the applicable county noise bylaw (i.e., By-Law No. 1719/08) (RM of Lorne 2008). • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for St. Leon Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 1,200 m is 35.4 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be below the AER Directive 038 Category 1 permissible sound levels of 40 dBA LeqNight and 50 dBA LeqDay. All theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re- used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • St. Leon Station is located within the Red River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • St. Leon Station is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Manitoba in Section 5.1.8.1. • There are no wetlands within 30 m of the existing station boundaries. • The work at St. Leon Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries in an area that has been approved as part of a previous application and will be disturbed prior to construction of the Project. Therefore additional disturbance to wetlands is not anticipated. • St. Leon Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • St. Leon Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Manitoba Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • St. Leon Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • St. Leon Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially identified parks, ecological reserves, wildlife areas, wildlife management areas or conservation agreements in Manitoba (Manitoba Protected Area Initiative 2012, MCWS 2013). Vegetation • St. Leon Station is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairie Ecozone. In its native state, the landscape was characterised by trembling aspen stands, bur oak forests, mixed tall shrubs and intermittent fescue species grasslands, however, most of the lands have been broken or cleared for agricultural purposes. Remnants of native vegetation exist on Crown land or on soils unsuitable for farming and some pastures and hay lands contain elements of native species. Poorly-drained, gleysolic soils near wetlands support willow and sedge species (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • Project activities at St. Leon Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site with some cultivated areas (i.e., non-native vegetation) which are not considered to be suitable for rare species. Therefore, a vegetation survey is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual. • A search of the MB CDC database did not indicate any rare plant species within 5 km of St. Leon Station (Enbridge 2013a). • The RM of Pembina was contacted on June 14, 2013 regarding weed concerns and a response had yet to be received at the time of writing this report.

Page 5-342

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.17-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife • St. Leon Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Manitoba Habitat Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • St. Leon Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • St. Leon Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks and Natural, Wildlife Management Areas, Manitoba’s Network of Protected Areas (MCWS 2013, Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative 2012). • The construction activities at St. Leon Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (Enbridge 2014a). • Hairy prairie clover, rough agalinis, small white lady’s-slipper, smooth arid goosefoot and western spiderwort are expected to potentially occur along the replacement pipeline route in the Manitoba Aspen Parkland Ecoregion (MB CDC 2013b). • The proposed construction activities at St. Leon Station will be installed on an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site, which is not considered suitable habitat for plant species with special conservation status. • A search of the MB CDC database did not report any observations of wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of St. Leon Station (Enbridge 2014a). • The construction activities at St. Leon Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land, which is not considered suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barns swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at St. Leon Station, however there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (Enbridge 2014a). Human Occupancy and • St. Leon Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will be limited Resource Use to the previously disturbed industrial lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. St. Leon Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Pembina. • St. Leon Station is situated in the Game Hunting Area 31. • St. Leon Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Manitoba Department of Conservation 2011, Manitoba Innovation, Energy and Mines 2012a,b,c). • St. Leon Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at St. Leon Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since most of the St. Leon Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for heritage resources is considered negligible. • Lands designated for construction in the southern and eastern boundaries of the existing Enbridge property have been disturbed as part of a previous application. Therefore, the potential for intact archaeological deposits in these areas is negligible. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent t St. Leon Station. • Refer to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • St. Leon Station is located in the RM of Pembina and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Town of Well-being Manitou. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at St. Leon Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated.

Page 5-343

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.17-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at St. Leon Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at St. Leon Station during operations. • Noise levels at St. Leon Station during operations are predicted to be below ERCB Directive 038 guidelines, therefore, the environmental noise impact assessment at St. Leon Station does not recommend supplemental noise monitoring or further mitigation (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to the St. Leon Station will be via provincial Highways 23, 3 and 244 as well as municipal grid roads. Access to the Services facility is only possible using existing St. Leon Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at St. Leon Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and Navigation • St. Leon Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Safety Employment and • In 2011, the Town of Manitou had a 62.8% participation rate in the labour force with an employment rate of 48.8% and an Economy unemployment rate of 19.8% (Statistics Canada 2012). • Employment and Economy was considered in the Economic Effects Analysis, the details of which are discussed in Appendix 11.

5.2.18 Gretna Station The proposed Project activities at Gretna Station include construction of three motor units and new sending and receiving traps at SE 8-1-1 WPM (Figure 2.4.1-18). Much of the proposed Project work will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed lands. Some work associated with the Project will occur in the northern portion of station on lands not previously disturbed by industrial activity. A summary of the environmental and socio-economic elements and considerations for Gretna Station pursuant to Guide A.2.4 as well as Tables A-2 and A-3 of the NEB Filing Manual is provided in Table 5.2.18-1.

Page 5-344

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.18-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR GRETNA STATION

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • Gretna Station lies within the Red River Plain Subdivision of the Manitoba Lowland Physiographic Region (Barto and Meteorological Vogel 1978). Environment • The site is underlain by the Amaranth, Reston and Melita formations of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. The Amaranth Formation is composed of red argillaceous dolomitic siltstone and sandstone; the Reston Formation consists of limestone, dolomite, shale; the Melita Formation consists of sandstone, shale, limestone (Manitoba Department of Energy and Mines 1980). • There are no areas of permafrost in the vicinity of Gretna Station (NRC 2009a). • There are no documented major earthquakes or landslides in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2009b, 2010a,b). • The topography in the area of Gretna Station is level and the elevation is approximately 250 m asl. • The site is located on alluvial sediments composed of sand and gravel, sand, silt, clay, organic detritus, channel and overbank sediments, which were reworked by existing rivers and primarily deposited as bars (Manitoba Geological Survey 2006b). • Gretna Station is located within the Prairie Ecozone in which the climate is marked by short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow cover (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • The mean annual daily temperature is 3.8°C while the mean annual precipitation is 533.3 mm measured at the Environment Canada weather station at Morden, located approximately 35 km west of Gretna Station. Temperature variations range from 43.9°C to -42°C (Environment Canada 2013a). Soil and Soil Productivity • Site-specific soil investigations and mapping for Gretna Station were conducted by Mentiga in October 2013. Detailed descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3B. • Land use at Gretna Station consists of disturbed and hay lands. • Moderately well to imperfectly-drained Rego and Orthic Black Chernozems with 28-93 cm of topsoil and developed on stone-free, silty clay to clay textured glaciolacustrine material (Deadhorse [DHO] soils) occur on undisturbed areas of the Station. Deadhorse soils are characterized by a very thick topsoil (Ap horizon) that is very dark brown and silty clay to silty clay loam textured. Usually a Ck horizon that is brown to dark brown in colour and clay to silty clay textured occurs immediately below the topsoil horizon. Occasionally a thin, dark yellowish brown, clay textured Bm horizon may occur below the topsoil horizon. These soils are usually non-saline, non-sodic and weakly saline but occasionally may be weakly saline at depth. Topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour (Appendix 3B). • CLI (1966a) has rated the soils at Gretna Station as Class 2 (soils that have moderate limitations in use for crops) and Class 3 (soils that have moderately severe limitations in use for crops). • Possible sources of soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past on-site activities. A search of the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory revealed no listed contamination in the vicinity of the site (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014). The Manitoba Contaminated Sites List revealed two spills at SW 8-1-1 WPM (File No. 44588 and 19628) (Government of Manitoba 2013b). Water Quality and • Gretna Station is located within the Red River Basin. Quantity • No work will occur within 30 m of any waterbodies and, therefore, detailed information on surface water quality and quantity is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • There are no known springs in the vicinity of Gretna Station. • There are no domestic wells located within 500 m of Gretna Station. • Potential surface or groundwater contaminants associated with construction activities at Gretna Station include spillage of gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating fluids and antifreeze. Air Quality • Air emissions in the area of Gretna Station are primarily a function of anthropogenic sources such as those arising from vehicles on adjacent rural roads and from surrounding agricultural activities. • The nearest residence is located approximately 190 m southeast of the station’s fence line. • The primary sources of CAC emissions and dust will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion for transportation, operation of heavy-duty equipment or utility vehicles (e.g., forklifts). • The Project scope at Gretna Station includes the installation of electricity driven crude oil pump units, new sending and receiving traps, connectivity work between existing manifolds and connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of CAC emissions. • During operation, CAC emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use for maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities at Gretna Station include SOx, NOx, CO and PM. • Since the Project work at Gretna Station will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual.

Page 5-345

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.18-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations GHG Emissions • The Project scope at Gretna Station includes installation of crude oil pump units, connectivity work between existing manifolds as well as connectivity work between auxiliary lines. This work scope will involve retrofitting activities and piping metal works, which may result in small amounts of GHG emissions. • Indirect GHG emissions due to electric power consumption by the proposed pumps. • Small amounts of indirect GHG emissions will be released due to electricity use for equipment other than pumps. • Small amounts of GHG emissions will be released from the motor vehicles used by contractors. • A GHG assessment was conducted for the Project by RWDI in September 2014 (Appendix 5). Acoustic Environment • Current sources of noise emissions in the area surrounding Gretna Station are from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent roads and railways, and from equipment used for farming. • Gretna Station is located approximately 500 m north of the Town of Gretna, Manitoba. • There are 13 residences located within the Acoustic Environment LSA. The nearest residence is located approximately 190 m southeast of the station fenceline. • A noise bylaw for the RM of Rhineland was not available online or provided in hardcopy. It is unknown if a noise bylaw has yet been developed for the RM of Rhineland. • An environmental noise impact assessment was conducted for Gretna Station by ACI in September 2014. Results of the noise modelling indicate the post-construction cumulative noise levels for the nearest residence at 190 m is 45.5 dBA LeqNight. The residence is predicted to be above the AER Directive 038 Category 2 permissible sound levels of 45 dBA LeqNight and 55 dBA LeqDay. All other residential and theoretical receptors within 1.5 km will also be under the classified AER Directive 038 levels. In addition, the dBC sound levels are projected to be less than 20 dBA, resulting in a low possibility of any low frequency tonal noise (Appendix 6). • Noise modelling conducted for the Project assumed the removal of all existing Line 3 structures and noise sources for the cumulative case scenario. However, Enbridge is currently exploring options regarding the existing pump units and associated structures. Therefore, existing Line 3 structures may still be present during the operation of the replacement pipeline potentially acting as additional sound barriers. If the existing Line 3 pump units and associated structures are re- used, an appropriate application will be submitted to the NEB regarding those facilities and additional noise modelling will be conducted. Fish and Fish Habitat • Gretna Station is located within the Red River Basin. • No work will be conducted within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish habitat is not deemed to be warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a).

Wetlands • Gretna Station is located in the PCA Wetlands subdivision of the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (NRC 1986). For details on the PCA Wetlands subdivision, see information provided for Manitoba in Section 5.1.8.1. • There are no wetlands external to the existing station boundaries within 30 m. However, one Class I/II wetland (previously cut for hay) is located inside the station boundaries at SE 8-1-1 WPM. • The work at Gretna Station will be conducted within the existing station boundaries on previously disturbed lands and lands used for hay production. Enbridge plans to avoid disturbance of the Class I/II wetland at SE 8-1-1 WPM during facility construction activities that occur adjacent to the wetland. However, this wetland will be encountered by the proposed pipeline work within the station boundaries. • Gretna Station is located in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a), but is not within or adjacent to any DU projects (DUC 2013b). • Gretna Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but is not within or adjacent to any NAWMP Target Landscapes (Manitoba Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012). • Gretna Station is not located within or adjacent to any Ramsar wetlands (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014), World Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 2014), Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSRN 2012), IBAs (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Areas (Environment Canada 2013c). • Gretna Station is not located within or adjacent to any provincially identified parks, ecological reserves, wildlife areas, wildlife management areas or conservation agreements in Manitoba (Manitoba Protected Area Initiative 2012, MCWS 2013). Vegetation • Gretna Station is located in the Lake Manitoba Plain Ecoregion which is the transition between areas of boreal forest to the north and aspen parkland to the southwest. The Ecoregion contains a mosaic of trembling aspen forests, bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) forests and plains rough fescue grasslands. Trembling aspen and shrubs occur on moist sites while bur oak and grass species occupy increasingly drier sites on loamy to clayey, Black Chernozemic soils. Poorly-drained gleysolic soils support willow species and sedge species communities (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1995). • Project activities at Gretna Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed, industrial site or hay land (i.e., non-native vegetation). There is a wetland located within the boundary of the station, however, this wetland has been previously cut for hay. No project activities are expected to occur within the boundaries of the wetland that has been previously cut for hay. • A search of the Manitoba CDC database did not indicate any rare plant species within 5 km of Gretna Station (Enbridge 2014a). • The weed of concern for the RM of Rhineland is leafy spurge (Rempel pers. comm.).

Page 5-346

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.18-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife • Gretna Station is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Manitoba Habitat Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a). • Gretna Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks or Protected Areas, IBAs, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2014, Environment Canada 2013c, WHSRN 2012, UNESCO 2014). • Gretna Station is not located within or adjacent to any Parks and Natural, Wildlife Management Areas, Manitoba’s Network of Protected Areas (MCWS 2013, Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative 2012). • The construction activities at Gretna Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land and on hay land, which is not considered to be suitable wildlife habitat. • A Class I/II wetland that has been previously cut for hay is located within the boundaries of the station, however, the wetland does not provide suitable habitat for wildlife. No disturbances of wildlife or wildlife habitat are expected to occur as a result of the construction activities. Species at Risk or • No work will occur within 30 m of any fish-bearing waterbodies, and, therefore, detailed information on fish and fish species Species of Special Status at risk is not deemed warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2014a). • Project activities at Gretna Station will be conducted within an existing large, previously disturbed industrial site or hay land, however, there is a wetland that has previously been cut for hay located within the boundaries of the station. • No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known from within 5 km of the station (Enbridge 2014a). • Hairy prairie clover, rough agalinis and small white lady’s-slipper are expected to potentially occur along the replacement pipeline route in the Lake Manitoba Plain Ecoregion (MB CDC 2013b). However, the potential habitat for these species is low within the footprint of the Gretna Station. • A search of the MB CDC database did not indicate any wildlife species with special conservation status within 2 km of the Gretna Station (Enbridge 2014a). • The construction activities at Gretna Station will be conducted within the existing facility boundaries on previously disturbed land and on hay land which is not considered suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • A Class I/II wetland that has been previously cut for hay is located within the boundaries of the station, however, the wetland does not provide suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status. • Barn swallows (Threatened by COSEWIC) use buildings as nesting sites (COSEWIC 2011) and may nest at the Gretna Station, however, there are no records of barn swallows nesting at this facility site (Enbridge 2014a). Human Occupancy and • Gretna Station is situated on previously disturbed lands owned by Enbridge. Proposed construction activities will occur on Resource Use previously disturbed or hay lands. Adjacent privately-owned lands are used for agriculture. Gretna Station is located on lands administered by the RM of Rhineland. • Gretna Station is situated in the Game Hunting Area 31. • Gretna Station does not encounter: rural or urban residential areas; Indian Reserves or Aboriginal groups; local, provincial or national parks or protected areas; Crown dispositions; metallic/industrial mineral dispositions; coal agreements and coal mine licenses; industrial/commercial areas; or mines, pits, quarries or resource extraction areas (IHS Inc. 2011, Manitoba Department of Conservation 2011, Manitoba Innovation, Energy and Mines 2012a,b,c). • Gretna Station is situated on an existing industrial site on privately-owned land. Therefore, no hunting, trapping, guide outfitting, outdoor recreation or other public activities are permitted at the station. • Project activities at Gretna Station will entail the construction of above ground components (e.g., pumps) which may be considered to have an aesthetic effect. Heritage Resources • Since most of the Gretna Station is located within a highly disturbed industrial site stripped of topsoil, the potential for historical resources is considered negligible. • New lands designated for construction within the east-central boundary of the existing Enbridge property, though located in an area of agricultural disturbance with low potential for intact surface or subsurface deposits, will need to be assessed for heritage resources. TLRU • Since June 2012, Enbridge has engaged with Aboriginal groups to provide comprehensive information about and seek feedback on the Project and to identify anticipated effects of the Project on their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle. • A number of the Aboriginal groups listed in Section 5.1.14 were identified to have historically used or presently use Crown lands along the replacement pipeline route to maintain a traditional lifestyle, however, the current land use and tenure precludes the practice of traditional activities on lands within and adjacent to Gretna Station. • Refer also to the setting discussion of TLRU in Section 5.1.14. Social and Cultural • Gretna Station is located in the RM of Rhineland and the nearest community in the Socio-Economic LSA is the Town of Well-being Gretna. Baseline information relating to Social and Cultural Well-being is provided in Appendix 11. • The construction activities at the Gretna Station will entail a small workforce using the services of the surrounding communities over a short period. Consequently, no Social and Cultural Well-being effects on the local communities arising from the construction-related activities are anticipated.

Page 5-347

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.2.18-1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the Project facilities that may be related to Human Health include Meteorological and Physical Environment, Soil and Soil Productivity, Water Quality and Quantity, Air and GHG Emissions, Acoustic Environment, Fish and Fish Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Information pertaining to these environmental elements is presented in this table. • Socio-economic elements that may be related to Human Health include Human Occupancy and Resource Use, TLRU, Social and Cultural Well-being, Infrastructure and Services, and Navigation and Navigation Safety. • Nuisance air and noise emissions will be associated with construction-related activities at the permanent facilities at Gretna Station. Characterization of nuisance emissions is discussed under Air Emissions, GHG Emissions and Acoustic Environment elements of this table. • Air emissions and GHG emissions are not expected to increase at Gretna Station during operations. • Noise levels at Gretna Station may increase during operations and are predicted to be above ERCB Directive 038 guidelines. The environmental noise impact assessment at Gretna Station recommends supplemental noise monitoring at the nearest residential receptors once the Project is commissioned in order to determine if further mitigation is necessary to ensure compliance with ERCB Directive 038 (Appendix 6). Infrastructure and • Access to Gretna Station will be via provincial Highways 18 and 243 well as municipal grid roads. Access to the facility is Services only possible using existing Gretna Station access roads. • Emergency and protective services, as well as health care services, are provided by nearby communities and cover the facility area (Appendix 11). • Waste management services, commercial accommodations and local services are provided by nearby communities (Appendix 11). • Given the small anticipated workforce for the proposed developments at Gretna Station and the short duration of construction activities at the site, this component of the Project will generally have a negligible effect on local infrastructure (i.e., roads, power utilities, water), services (i.e., accommodation, recreation, emergency and health care services) and traffic. Navigation and Navigation • Gretna Station is not located in, on, over, under, through, across or within 30 m of a navigable watercourse or wetland. Safety Employment and • Participation rate in the labour force, employment and unemployment rate rates are not available due to the unavailability of Economy data or for confidentiality reasons (Statistics Canada 2012).

5.3 Temporary Facilities The following subsections present a summary of the environmental setting of the proposed temporary facility sites selected prior to Project application, pursuant to Guide A.2.4 of the NEB Filing Manual. A summary of the proposed activities at these facility sites is provided in Section 2.0.

The locations of potential temporary facilities (e.g., staging and stockpile sites, equipment storage sites, construction work camps) will be selected both prior to Project application and in the field. The temporary facilities selected in the field will be determined as far in advance of construction as practical to allow adequate time to choose and evaluate any alternate sites, and will follow the process for environmental review outlined in the Additional Workspace Acquisition Plan provided in the EPPs (Appendix 1). Wherever practical, the temporary facilities will be located on previously disturbed areas to minimize overall Project disturbance. All temporary facility sites will be reviewed from an environmental perspective prior to their use.

Temporary facility locations selected prior to Project application and included in this report include:

• sites for shoo-flies selected to match those used during the ACEP, where practical, and shown on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2); and

• stockpile sites selected to match those used during the ACEP, where practical.

Temporary facilities are generally located along or adjacent to the replacement pipeline route, therefore, the environmental and socio-economic setting for the temporary facilities is expected to be generally consistent with the setting of the replacement pipeline (Section 5.1) for elements where the spatial boundaries that extend beyond the Footprint and are not expected to exhibit variability within the spatial boundaries evaluated (i.e., air emissions, GHG emissions, acoustic environment, TLRU and the socio-economic elements). Elements that exhibit greater variability within the Footprint (i.e., soils,

Page 5-348

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427 proximity to waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife and wildlife habitat) may not be consistent with that of the replacement pipeline and, therefore, must be outlined prior to construction. All temporary facility sites will need to be assessed for soils and heritage resources prior to construction.

A summary of the spatial boundaries for the elements discussed in the following temporary facilities environmental settings are as described in Section 5.2. The rationale for the determination of these boundaries is described in Section 6.0.

The locations of some of the stockpile sites have been identified, and environmental setting information for the selected elements for these locations is outlined in Table 5.3-1.

TABLE 5.3-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR KNOWN STOCKPILE SITES

Used Approximate During Waterbody Wildlife and Wildlife Stockpile Site Size (ha) ACEP Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Habitat Hardisty 4.27 No Disturbed No Concerns Central Parkland Disturbed land, limited (SW 19-42-9 W4M) Natural Subregion. No wildlife habitat potential. A clearing required. Low search of the AESRD potential for rare FWMIS database reported plants. A search of observations of two species, ACIMS database American badger (Special reported previous Concern by COSEWIC) and occurrences of Canadian toad (provincially- beaked annual listed as Sensitive in skeleton-weed (S2), Alberta), within 2 km of the Pennsylvania stockpile site cinquefoil (S1), prairie (AESRD 2014e). wedge grass (S2) and sand-millet (S1) within 5 km of the stockpile site (ATPR 2013b). Amisk 7.21 No Tame pasture No Concerns Central Parkland Tame pasture land use, (SW 26-41-8 W4M) Natural Subregion. No suitable wildlife habitat. A clearing required. search of AESRD FWMIS Potential for rare database reported two plants. A search of species, American badger ACIMS database (Special Concern by reported previous COSEWIC) and grasshopper occurrences of bur sparrow (provincially-listed oak (SU), large as Sensitive in Alberta), Canada St. John’s within 2 km of the stockpile wort (S2), northern site (AESRD 2014e) blue-eyed-grass (S3) and Schweinitz’s flatsedge (S2) within 5 km of the stockpile site (ATPR 2013b). Provost 6.36 No Cultivated No Concerns Aspen Parkland Cultivation land use, limited (SW 30-37-28 W3M) Ecoregion. No wildlife habitat potential. A clearing required. Low search of the SK CDC potential for rare database did not report any plants. A search of observations of wildlife the SK CDC database species with special reported previous conservation status within occurrences of 2 km of the stockpile site northern blue-eyed- (SK CDC 2014a). grass (S3) within 5 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a).

Page 5-349

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-1 Cont'd

Used Approximate During Waterbody Wildlife and Wildlife Stockpile Site Size (ha) ACEP Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Habitat Cactus Station 4.08 No Cultivated No Concerns Moist Mixed Cultivation land use, limited (SE 5-37-27 W3M) Grassland, Moister wildlife habitat potential. The Ecoregion. No stockpile site is 1.6 km clearing required. Low northeast of the Cactus Lake potential for rare Migratory Bird Concentration plants. A search of Site (SK CDC 2014a). A the SK CDC database search of the SK CDC did not report any database reported one observations of rare species, loggerhead shrike plants within 5 km of (Threatened under Schedule the stockpile site 1 of the SARA and by (SK CDC 2014a). COSEWIC), within 2 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Cactus Station 4.08 No Cultivated or A Class I/II Moist Mixed Cultivation or hay land use, (Preferred) Hay wetland is crossed Grassland, Moister limited wildlife habitat (SE 17-36-27 W3M) by the proposed Ecoregion. No potential. A search of the SK north boundary of clearing required. Low CDC database reported one the stockpile site. potential for rare species, loggerhead shrike plants. A search of (Threatened under Schedule the SK CDC database 1 of the SARA and by did not report any COSEWIC), within 2 km of observations of rare the stockpile site plants within 5 km of (SK CDC 2014a). the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Kerrobert 5.78 No Cultivated No Concerns Mixed Grassland Cultivation land use, limited (SE 23-34-23 W3M) Ecoregion. No wildlife habitat potential. A clearing required. Low search of the SK CDC potential for rare database did not report any plants. A search of observations of wildlife the SK CDC database species with special reported previous conservation status within occurrences of five- 2 km of the stockpile site foliate cinquefoil (S3) (SK CDC 2014a). and northern buttercup (S2?) within 5 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Stranraer 5.32 Yes Native prairie One Class I/II Moist Mixed Native prairie land use, (SE 4-32-18 W3M) wetland is located Grassland, Drier suitable wildlife habitat. A inside of the Ecoregion. Clearing search of the SK CDC proposed required. Potential for database reported one boundaries of the rare plants. A search species, burrowing owl stockpile site. of the SK CDC (Endangered under database reported Schedule 1 of the SARA and previous occurrences by COSEWIC), within 2 km of Dakota stinking of the stockpile site goosefoot (S2), few- (SK CDC 2014a). flowered aster (S3), five-foliate cinquefoil (S3), Nevada rush (S2), red club-rush (S2?) and slender mouse-ear cress (S1) within 5 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a).

Page 5-350

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-1 Cont'd

Used Approximate During Waterbody Wildlife and Wildlife Stockpile Site Size (ha) ACEP Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Habitat Rosetown 3.48 Yes Cultivated No Concerns Moist Mixed Cultivation land use, limited (SW 14-30-15 W3M) Grassland, Drier wildlife habitat potential. A Ecoregion. No search of the SK CDC clearing required. Low database reported one potential for rare species, burrowing owl plants. A search of (Endangered under the SK CDC database Schedule 1 of the SARA and did not report any by COSEWIC), within 2 km observations of rare of the stockpile site plants within 5 km of (SK CDC 2014a). the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Rosetown (Preferred) 3.48 No Cultivated A Class I/II Moist Mixed Cultivation land use, limited (SE 1-31-15 W3M) wetland is located Grassland, Drier wildlife habitat potential. A within 30 m of the Ecoregion. No search of the SK CDC proposed west clearing required. Low database reported one boundary of the potential for rare species, burrowing owl stockpile site at plants. A search of (Endangered under SW 1-31-15 W3M. the SK CDC database Schedule 1 of the SARA and A Class I/II did not report any by COSEWIC), within 2 km wetland is located observations of rare of the stockpile site inside of the plants within 5 km of (SK CDC 2014a). proposed the stockpile site boundaries of the (SK CDC 2014a). stockpile site. Milden Unknown No Tame Pasture A Class V wetland Moist Mixed Tame pasture land use, (NW 9-29-9 W3M) is located within Grassland, Drier. No suitable wildlife habitat. A 30 m of the clearing required. search of the SK CDC proposed south Potential for rare database reported one boundary of the plants. A SK CDC species, burrowing owl stockpile site. database search did (Endangered under not report any Schedule 1 of the SARA and observations of rare by COSEWIC), within 2 km plants within 5 km of of the stockpile site the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). (SK CDC 2014a). Loreburn 6.72 Yes Cultivated A Class I/II Moist Mixed Cultivation land use, limited (SW 12-26-5 W3M) wetland is located Grassland, Drier wildlife habitat potential. A within 30 m of the Ecoregion. Clearing search of the SK CDC proposed required. Low database reported one southeast potential for rare species, burrowing owl boundary of the plants. A search of (Endangered under stockpile site at the SK CDC database Schedule 1 of the SARA and NW 1-26-5 W3M. reported previous by COSEWIC), within 2 km A Class III wetland occurrences of curved of the stockpile site is located inside of yellow-cress (S2S3) (SK CDC 2014a). the proposed and Engelmann’s boundaries of the spike-rush (S2) within stockpile site. 5 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Craik 7.50 No Native prairie A Class IV Moist Mixed Native prairie land use, (NE 3-23-29 W2M) wetland is located Grassland, Drier suitable wildlife habitat. A within 30 m of the Ecoregion. No search of the SK CDC proposed clearing required. database did not report any southwest Potential for rare observation of wildlife boundary of the plants. A search of species with special stockpile site. A the SK CDC database conservation status within Class I/II wetland did not report any 2 km of the stockpile site is crossing the observations of rare (SK CDC 2014a). proposed plants within 5 km of northwest the stockpile site boundary of the (SK CDC 2014a). stockpile site.

Page 5-351

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-1 Cont'd

Used Approximate During Waterbody Wildlife and Wildlife Stockpile Site Size (ha) ACEP Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Habitat Craik (cont’d) See above See above See above Two Class I/II See above See above wetlands are located inside of the proposed boundaries of the stockpile site. Bethune 9.48 Yes Native prairie A Class III wetland Moist Mixed Native prairie land use, (SE 12-19-24 W2M and disturbed is located within Grassland, Drier suitable wildlife habitat and SW 7-19-23 W2M) land 30 m of the Ecoregion. Limited disturbed land use, limited proposed clearing required. wildlife habitat. A search of northeast Potential for rare the SK CDC database did boundary of the plants on native not report any observation of stockpile site. prairie land. A search wildlife species with special of the SK CDC conservation status within database reported 2 km of the stockpile site previous occurrences (SK CDC 2014a). of low milk-vetch (S3), mad dog skullcap (S3), prairie dunewort (S1) and racemose milk-vetch (S2) within 5 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Regina/Rowatt 4.56 Yes Disturbed Land A Class V wetland Moist Mixed Disturbed land use, limited (SW 30-16-19 W2M) complex is Grassland, Drier wildlife habitat potential. A crossed by the Ecoregion. Limited search of the SK CDC proposed south clearing required. Low database did not report any boundary of the potential for rare observations of wildlife stockpile site. The plants. A search of species with special stockpile site is the SK CDC database conservation status within located within the reported previous 2 km of the stockpile site Class I/II portion occurrences of prairie (SK CDC 2014a). of the wetland ragwort (S1) and complex. upright narrow-leaved pondweed (S2) within 5 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Odessa 4.80 No Cultivated A Class IV Aspen Parkland Cultivation land use, limited (SE 35-15-14 W2M wetland complex Ecoregion. No wildlife habitat potential. A NE 26-15-14 W2M) is located within clearing required. Low search of the SK CDC 30 m of the potential for rare database did not report any proposed north plants. A SK CDC observations of wildlife boundary of the database search species with special stockpile site. reported previous conservation status within occurrences of 2 km of the stockpile site common butterwort (SK CDC 2014a). (S2S3) and white bog adder’s-mouth orchid (S1S2) within 5 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a).

Page 5-352

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-1 Cont'd

Used Approximate During Waterbody Wildlife and Wildlife Stockpile Site Size (ha) ACEP Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Habitat Montmarte 6.66 Yes Disturbed land A Class III wetland Aspen Parkland Disturbed land, limited (NE 17-14-10 W2M NW 16-14- is crossed by the Ecoregion. No wildlife habitat potential. NW 16-14-10 W2M 10 W2M proposed east clearing required. Low Stockpile site is located SW 16-14-10 W2M) SW 16-14- boundary of the potential for rare 200 m southeast of the 10 W2M stockpile site. plants. A search of Moose Mountain Upland the SK CDC database Migratory Bird Concentration did not report any Site (SK CDC 2014a). A observations of rare search of the SK CDC plants within 5 km of database reported one the stockpile site species, Sprague's pipit (SK CDC 2014a). (Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC), within 2 km of the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Kipling 7.74 Yes Cultivated A Class III wetland Aspen Parkland Cultivation land use, limited (NE 21-13-5 W2M) is crossed by the Ecoregion. Limited wildlife habitat potential. A proposed clearing required. Low search of the SK CDC northeast potential for rare database did not report any boundary of the plants. A search of observations of wildlife stockpile site. the SK CDC database species with special did not report any conservation status within observations of rare 2 km of the stockpile site plants within 5 km of (SK CDC 2014a). the stockpile site (SK CDC 2014a). Fairlight 5.46 Yes Hay A Class III wetland Aspen Parkland Hay land, limited wildlife (NW 31-10-31 WPM) is located within Ecoregion. Limited habitat potential. A search of 30 m of the clearing required. Low the SK CDC database did proposed west potential for rare not report any observations boundary of the plants. A search of of wildlife species with stockpile site. Five the SK CDC database special conservation status wetlands are did not report any within 2 km of the stockpile crossed by the observations of rare site (SK CDC 2014a). proposed stock plants within 5 km of pile site the stockpile site boundaries: two (SK CDC 2014a). Class III wetlands cross the southwest boundary, one Class III wetland crosses the north boundary; one Class II wetland crosses the southeast boundary, and one Class I/II wetland crosses the west boundary.

Page 5-353

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-1 Cont'd

Used Approximate During Waterbody Wildlife and Wildlife Stockpile Site Size (ha) ACEP Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Habitat Cromer 3.24 No Hay No Concerns Aspen Parkland Hay land, limited wildlife (SE 20-9-28 WPM) Ecoregion. No habitat potential. A search of clearing required. Low the MB CDC database did potential for rare not report any observations plants. A search of of wildlife species with the MB CDC special conservation status database reported within 2 km of the stockpile previous occurrences site (Enbridge 2014a). of golden-bean (S2), narrow-leaved milk- vetch (S2S3) and shining-leaved arnica (S2) within 5 km of the stockpile site (Enbridge 2014a). Oak Lake 5.60 Yes Hay and A Class I/II Aspen Parkland Wetland, suitable wildlife (NW 14-9-24 WPM) wetland wetland complex Ecoregion. No habitat and hay land use, is crossed by the clearing required. limited wildlife habitat proposed east Potential for rare potential. A search of the MB boundary of the plants in wetland. A CDC database reported six stockpile site. search of the species, Baird’s sparrow MB CDC database (Special Concern by reported previous COSEWIC), bobolink occurrences of (Threatened by COSEWIC), American bugseed chestnut-collared longspur, (S2S3), leafy loggerhead shrike and Musineon (S2), Sprague’s pipit (all pincushion cactus Threatened under (S2), prairie bird’s- Schedule 1 the SARA and foot-trefoil (S2S3), by COSEWIC) as well as sand bluestem western hognose snake (S2S3), shining- (provincially-listed as leaved arnica (S2) Threatened in Manitoba), and small white within 2 km of the stockpile lady’s-slipper (S2) site (Enbridge 2014a). The within 5 km of the Oak Lake stockpile site is stockpile site located within the Oak Lake (Enbridge 2014a). IBA (Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada 2012). Souris 5.84 Yes Disturbed land No Concerns Aspen Parkland Disturbed land, limited (NW 1-8-21 WPM Ecoregion. No wildlife habitat potential. A NE 1-8-21 WPM) clearing required. Low search of the MB CDC potential for rare database reported one plants. A search of species, Baird’s sparrow the MB CDC (Special Concern by database reported COSEWIC), within 2 km of previous occurrences the stockpile site of long-fruited parsley (Enbridge 2014a). (S3) and Torrey’s sedge (S4) within 5 km of the stockpile site (Enbridge 2014a).

Page 5-354

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-1 Cont'd

Used Approximate During Waterbody Wildlife and Wildlife Stockpile Site Size (ha) ACEP Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Habitat Glenboro 4.24 Yes Cultivated A Class I/II Aspen Parkland Cultivation land use, limited (SW 2-7-14 WPM) wetland is located Ecoregion. No wildlife habitat potential. A within 30 m of the clearing required. Low search of the MB CDC proposed east potential for rare database reported one boundary of the plants. A search of species, bobolink stockpile site. the MB CDC (Threatened by COSEWIC), database reported within 2 km of the stockpile previous occurrences site (Enbridge 2014a). of hairy prairie-clover (S2S3), porcupine sedge (S3?) and Schweinitz’s flatsedge (S2) within 5 km of the stockpile site (Enbridge 2014a). Swan Lake 5.40 No Tame pasture Two Class I/II Boreal Transition Tame pasture land use, (NE 22-5-11 WPM wetlands are Ecoregion. Limited suitable wildlife habitat. A NW 23-5-11 WPM) crossed by the clearing required. search of the MB CDC proposed Potential for rare database did not report any boundaries of the plants. A search of observation of wildlife stockpile site: one the MB CDC species with special wetland by the database did not conservation status within west boundary report any 2 km of the stockpile site and one wetland observations of rare (Enbridge 2014a). by the east plants within 5 km of boundary. the stockpile site (Enbridge 2014a). Manitou (Optional) 1.50 No Cultivated No Concerns Aspen Parkland Cultivation land use, limited (SE 24-4-9 WPM) Ecoregion. No wildlife habitat potential. A clearing required. Low search of the MB CDC potential for rare database did not report any plants. A search of observations of wildlife the MB CDC species with special database did not conservation status within report any 2 km of the stockpile site observations of rare (Enbridge 2014a). plants within 5 km of the stockpile site (Enbridge 2014a). Morden 5.46 Yes Hay and tame A Class I/II Aspen Parkland Tame pasture land use, (NW 1-3-6 WPM) pasture wetland is located Ecoregion. Limited suitable wildlife habitat and inside of the clearing required. hay land use, limited wildlife proposed Potential for rare habitat potential. A search of boundaries of the plants on tame the MB CDC database stockpile site. pasture. A search of reported one species, the MB CDC chestnut-collared longspur database reported (Threatened under Schedule previous occurrences 1 the SARA and by of aster-like boltonia COSEWIC), within 2 km of (S2S3), honewort the stockpile site (S2), hop-hornbeam (Enbridge 2014a). (S2), pincushion cactus (S2), plains reed grass (S3) and rough agalinis (S1S2) within 5 km of the stockpile site (Enbridge 2014a).

Page 5-355

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-1 Cont'd

Used Approximate During Waterbody Wildlife and Wildlife Stockpile Site Size (ha) ACEP Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Habitat Winkler 5.33 No Cultivation No Concerns Lake Manitoba Plain Cultivation land use, limited (SW 16-2-4 WPM) Ecoregion. No wildlife habitat potential. A clearing required. Low search of the MB CDC potential for rare database did not report any plants. A search of observations of wildlife the MB CDC species with special database did not conservation status within report any 2 km of the stockpile site observations of rare (Enbridge 2014a). plants within 5 km of the stockpile site (Enbridge 2014a).

The locations of some of the shoo-flies have been identified, and environmental setting information for the selected elements for these locations is outlined in Table 5.3-2.

TABLE 5.3-2

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR KNOWN SHOO-FLIES

SKP Start and Shoo-fly Waterbody Wildlife and Legal Location End Points Length Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Wildlife Habitat S½ 10 and SKP 336.9 to 0.7 km Native prairie One Class VI wetland Mixed grassland; no Suitable wildlife NE 3-35-24 W3M SKP 337.7 is crossed by the clearing required habitat proposed shoo-fly boundaries. NE 32-21-27 W2M SKP 626.0 to 0.2 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Moist mixed Limited wildlife SKP 626.2 is crossed by the grassland, drier; no potential proposed shoo-fly clearing required boundaries. NW 18-20-25 W2M SKP 648.2 to 0.3 km Cultivated One Class III wetland is Moist mixed Limited wildlife SKP 648.5 crossed by the grassland, drier; no potential proposed shoo-fly clearing required boundaries. S½ 7-19-23 W2M SKP 671 1.2 km Native prairie No concerns Moist mixed Suitable wildlife grassland, drier; no habitat clearing required SE 34-18-23 W2M SKP 679.3 0.8 km Tame pasture Two wetlands are Moist mixed Suitable wildlife located within 30 m of grassland, drier; no habitat the proposed shoo-fly clearing required boundaries: one Class III wetland is located south of the proposed boundaries and one Shrubby Swamp is crossed by the proposed boundaries. NE 19-17-21 W2M SKP 698.9 0.4 km Cultivated No concerns Moist mixed Limited wildlife grassland, drier; no potential clearing required NE 19-15-13 W2M SKP 784.1 to 0.3 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 784.4 is crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. NW 20-15-13 W2M SKP 784.5 to 0.3 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 784.8 is crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries.

Page 5-356

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-2 Cont'd

SKP Start and Shoo-fly Waterbody Wildlife and Legal Location End Points Length Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Wildlife Habitat NE 25-14-11 W2M SKP 814.7 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class III wetland is Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 814.8 located north of the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries within 30 m. NE 30-14-10 W2M SKP 816 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class III wetland is Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 816.1 crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. SW 26-14-10 W2M SKP 821.9 to 0.3 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 822.1 complex is crossed by clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries. N½ 13-14-9 W2M SKP 834.2 to 0.1 km Cultivated Two wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 834.3 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries: a Class III wetland crossed by the proposed boundaries and a Class IV wetland southwest of the proposed boundaries. NW 12-14-8 W2M SKP 843.7 to 0.25 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 843.9 complex is crossed by clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries. N½ 4-14-7 W2M SKP 849.5 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 849.6 is located directly clearing required potential adjacent to the proposed shoo-fly boundaries within 30 m. SW 1-14-7 W2M SKP 854 to 0.5 km Cultivated Four wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 854.3 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries: one Class III wetland complex crossed by the proposed boundaries; one Class II wetland southeast of the proposed boundaries; and two Class I/II wetlands southeast of the proposed boundaries. SE 1-14-7 W2M SKP 854.7 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class III wetland is Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 854.8 located directly clearing required potential adjacent to the proposed shoo-fly boundaries within 30 m. SE 1-14-7 W2M SKP 855 to 0.1 km Cultivated Two Class III wetlands Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 855.1 are located directly clearing required potential adjacent to the proposed shoo-fly boundaries within 30 m.

Page 5-357

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-2 Cont'd

SKP Start and Shoo-fly Waterbody Wildlife and Legal Location End Points Length Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Wildlife Habitat SW 34-13-6 W2M SKP 861.1 to 0.2 km Cultivated Three wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 861.2 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries: one Class IV wetland complex directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries; one Class IV wetland complex south of the proposed boundaries; and one Class III wetland southwest of the proposed boundaries. NW 26-13-6 W2M SKP 862.5 to 0.2 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 862.6 complex is crossed by clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries. NE 26-13-6 W2M SKP 863.1 to 0.5 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 863.4 is crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. NW 25-13-6 W2M SKP 864.1 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 864.3 complex is crossed by clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries. NE 13-13-5 W2M SKP 876.2 to 0.5 km Cultivated Five wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 876.5 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries: one Class III wetland and one Class IV wetland crossed by the proposed boundaries; one Class III wetland complex directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries; one Class I/II wetland west of the proposed boundaries; and one Class III wetland southwest of the proposed boundaries. N½ 18-13-4 W2M SKP 877 to 0.7 km Cultivated Two wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 877.6 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries: one Class IV wetland crossed by the proposed boundaries; and one Class III wetland south of the proposed boundaries. SW 16-13-4 W2M SKP 880.6 to 0.2 km Hay Two wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 880.7 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries: one Class III wetland directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries; and one Class III wetland southwest of the proposed boundaries.

Page 5-358

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-2 Cont'd

SKP Start and Shoo-fly Waterbody Wildlife and Legal Location End Points Length Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Wildlife Habitat SE 7-13-3 W2M SKP 887.9 to 0.5 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 888.1 complex is crossed by clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries. SW 8-13-3 W2M SKP 889 to 0.2 km Hay One Class III wetland is Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 889.2 crossed by the clearing required, rare potential proposed shoo-fly plant observed on boundaries. Footprint NE 5-13-3 W2M SKP 889.9 to 0.2 km Cultivated One Class III wetland is Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 890.1 crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. SW 2-13-3 W2M SKP 894.1 to 0.2 km Hay Two wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 894.2 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries; one Class II wetland crossed by the proposed boundaries and one Class III wetland directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries. SE 26-12-2 W2M SKP 905.6 to 0.1 km Tame pasture Four wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Suitable wildlife SKP 905.7 located within 30 m of clearing required habitat the proposed shoo-fly boundaries; one Class IV wetland crossed by the proposed boundaries; one Class III wetland southeast of the proposed boundaries; one Class III wetland west of the proposed boundaries; and one Class I/II wetland directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries. N½ 24-12-2 W2M SKP 907.1 to 0.4 km Hay and tame Three wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Suitable wildlife SKP 908.4 pasture located within 30 m of clearing required habitat in tame the proposed shoo-fly pasture; limited boundaries; one Class wildlife potential in II wetland and one hay land Class IV wetland complex directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries; and one Class I/II wetland south of the proposed boundaries. NW 19-12-1 W2M SKP 908.7 to 0.4 km Hay Three wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 908.8 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries; one Class IV wetland crossed by the proposed boundaries; and two Class I/II wetlands southwest of the proposed boundaries. NW 19-12-1 W2M SKP 908.9 to 0.1 km Hay One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 909 complex is crossed by clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries.

Page 5-359

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-2 Cont'd

SKP Start and Shoo-fly Waterbody Wildlife and Legal Location End Points Length Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Wildlife Habitat SW 19-12-1 W2M SKP 909.1 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class III wetland is Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 909.2 crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. SW 19-12-1 W2M SKP 909.3 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class III wetland is Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 909.4 crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. NW 16-12-1 W2M SKP 912.1 to 0.6 km Hay One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 912.5 is crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. N½ 16-12-1 W2M SKP 912.6 to 0.25 km Hay One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 912.8 is crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. SW 12-12-1 W2M SKP 917.6 to 0.4 Treed Four wetlands are Aspen Parkland; Suitable wildlife SKP 917.9 located within the limited clearing may habitat proposed shoo-fly be required boundaries; one Class III wetland and one Class IV wetland complex crossed by the proposed boundaries; one Class IV wetland complex directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries; and one Broad-leaf Treed Swamp to north of the proposed boundaries. NW 32-11-33 WPM SKP 921.6 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class III wetland is Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 921.7 located north of the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries within 30 m. SW 32-11-33 WPM SKP 922.2 to 0.1 km Cultivated Two wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 922.3 located within 30 m of clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries; one Class III wetland crossed by the proposed boundaries; and one Class III wetland directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries. SE 32-11-33 WPM SKP 922.4 to 0.1 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 922.5 is located to the north clearing required potential of the proposed shoo- fly boundaries within 30 m. E½ 23-11-33 WPM, SKP 928.4 to 2.0 km Tame pasture One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; Suitable wildlife and W½ 24-11-33 SKP 929.4 complex is crossed by limited clearing may habitat WPM the proposed shoo-fly be required boundaries.

Page 5-360

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-2 Cont'd

SKP Start and Shoo-fly Waterbody Wildlife and Legal Location End Points Length Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Wildlife Habitat NE 17-10-30 WPM SKP 957.9 to 0.2 km Cultivated Three wetlands are Aspen Parkland; Limited wildlife SKP 958.1 located within 30 m of limited clearing may potential the proposed shoo-fly be required boundaries; one Class III wetland north of the proposed boundaries; one Class III wetland east of the proposed boundaries; and one Class IV wetland complex southwest of the proposed boundaries. SW 16-10-30 WPM SKP 958.9 to 0.4 km Treed pasture Two wetlands are Aspen Parkland; no Suitable wildlife SKP 959.2 and cultivated located within 30 m of clearing required habitat in treed the proposed shoo-fly pasture; limited boundaries; one Class wildlife potential in III wetland crossed by cultivation the proposed boundaries and one Class IV wetland complex directly adjacent to the proposed boundaries. NE 25-9-29 WPM SKP 975.565 to 0.1 km Cultivated and One Class I/II wetland Aspen Parkland; no Suitable wildlife SKP 957.724 native prairie is crossed by the clearing required habitat on native proposed shoo-fly prairie boundaries. NE 34-9-29 WPM SKP 971.9 to 1.5 km Treed pasture Pipestone Creek. Aspen Parkland; Suitable wildlife SKP 972.1 No wetland concerns. limited clearing may habitat be required SW 32-8-23 WPM SKP 1031.3 to 0.7 km Treed Three wetlands are Aspen Parkland; Suitable wildlife and SKP 1032 located within 30 m of limited clearing may habitat SE 33-8-23 WPM the proposed shoo-fly be required boundaries: one Broad- leaf Tree Swamp complex crossed by the proposed boundaries and two Class I/II wetlands north of the proposed boundaries. NE 22-8-22 WPM SKP 1044.2 to 0.4 km Tame pasture One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Suitable wildlife SKP 1044.6 complex is crossed by clearing required habitat the proposed shoo-fly boundaries. E½ 16-8-21 WPM SKP 1052.4 to 0.5 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 1052.8 complex is located clearing required potential north of proposed shoo-fly boundaries within 30 m. NW 33-7-19 WPM SKP 1072.9 0.25 km Cultivated and Two wetlands are Aspen Parkland; Suitable wildlife treed located within 30 m of Limited clearing may habitat in treed; the proposed shoo-fly be required limited wildlife boundaries; one Class potential in III wetland and one cultivated land use Class IV wetland directly adjacent to the proposed shoo-fly boundaries. SW 25-7-18 WPM SKP 1087.6 0.8 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; No Limited wildlife complex is crossed by clearing required potential the proposed shoo-fly boundaries.

Page 5-361

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TABLE 5.3-2 Cont'd

SKP Start and Shoo-fly Waterbody Wildlife and Legal Location End Points Length Land Use within 30 m Vegetation Wildlife Habitat SE 30-7-17 WPM SKP 1090.2 0.2 km Cultivated One Class IV wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife complex is located clearing required potential north of the proposed shoo-fly boundaries within 30 m. NE 14-7-17 WPM SKP 1098.2 0.06 km Cultivated One Class I/II wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife is crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. NW 18-7-16 WPM SKP 1100.2 0.3 km Cultivated No concerns Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife clearing required potential NE 5-7-14 WPM SKP 1123.2 0.3 km Cultivated No concerns Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife clearing required potential NW 5-7-14 WPM SKP 1123.4 0.3 km Cultivated No concerns Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife clearing required potential NE 36-6-14 WPM SKP 1130.5 0.4 km Cultivated Two Class III wetlands Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife are crossed by the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries. NW 32-5-11 WPM SKP 1157.2 0.4 km Tame Pasture One Class IV wetland Boreal Transition; no Suitable wildlife complex is located to clearing required habitat the south of the proposed shoo-fly boundaries. SW 19-5-10 WPM SKP 1166.7 to 0.3 km Cultivated No concerns Boreal Transition; Limited wildlife SKP 1166.8 limited clearing may potential be required NE 23-4-9 WPM SKP 1186 to 0.6 km Cultivated One Class III wetland Aspen Parkland; no Limited wildlife SKP 1186.5 complex is crossed the clearing required potential proposed shoo-fly boundaries.

5.4 Decommissioning The locations of decommissioning activities entailing physical works (e.g., segmenting) will be selected following Project application. Enbridge anticipates that all of the physical work will be conducted within Enbridge-owned property, permanent easements or temporary workspace associated with the Project. Any additional infrastructure will be located within existing Enbridge easements.

Enbridge is currently conducting an evaluation of the existing Line 3 pipeline to be decommissioned to determine where decommissioning activities will take place. Decommissioning activity locations will follow the process for environmental review outlined in the Decommissioning Environmental Technical Report (Appendix 12).

The replacement pipeline route parallels and adjoins the Enbridge pipeline system, which contains the existing Line 3 pipeline to be decommissioned, for the majority of its length. Therefore, the environmental and socio-economic setting for the existing Line 3 pipeline is expected to be generally consistent with the environmental and socio-economic setting of the replacement pipeline, which is provided in Section 5.1. The replacement pipeline route at Regina and Morden, however, deviate from the existing Line 3 to the extent that the environmental and socio-economic setting may not be consistent with that of the replacement pipeline route for all elements. Environmental and socio-economic setting information is therefore provided below for the existing Line 3 route at Regina and Morden for select elements.

A summary of the spatial boundaries for the elements discussed in the environmental and socio-economic settings for the decommissioning of the existing Line 3 are as described in Section 5.1. The rationale for the determination of these boundaries is described in Section 6.0.

Page 5-362

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.4.1 Regina The environmental and socio-economic setting for the existing Line 3 pipeline near Regina (SKP 684.5 to SKP 765.2) is consistent with that of the replacement pipeline for the following elements: physical and meteorological environmental; water quality and quantity, air quality, GHG emissions, acoustic environment, fish and fish habitat, TLRU, social and cultural well-being, human health, infrastructure and services, navigation and navigation safety as well as employment and economy (Section 5.1).

The environmental setting for the existing Line 3 that is not consistent with the replacement pipeline for wetlands, vegetation wildlife and wildlife habitat, species at risk and human occupancy and resource use is presented below.

Once the locations for decommissioning sites requiring ground disturbance are determined, each site will be assessed for soils and heritage resources prior to construction. Field work may be necessary based on existing information and approvals.

Wetlands The wetland environmental setting for the Line 3 replacement pipeline in Saskatchewan (Section 5.1.8) provides information that is representative of the environmental setting for the existing Line 3 pipeline near Regina, except that the existing Line 3 pipeline encounters two Private Conservation Lands located at S ½ 18-17-17 W2M and NE 7-17-17 W2M (SK CDC 2014a).

Vegetation The segment of the existing Line 3 pipeline near Regina does not cross any ecoregions in addition to those crossed by the Line 3 replacement pipeline route. Therefore, the rare plants and rare ecological communities with the potential to occur along the existing Line 3 pipeline do not differ from the rare plants and rare ecological communities with the potential to occur along the Line 3 replacement pipeline route.

Only one RM, South Qu’Appelle No. 157 in Saskatchewan, is crossed by the existing Line 3 pipeline near Regina and is not crossed by the Line 3 replacement pipeline. Weeds of concern for the RM of South Qu’Appelle include scentless chamomile, nodding thistle, leafy spurge, yellow toad-flax, annual hawksbeard and purple loosestrife (Herauf pers. comm.). The RM of South Qu’Appelle does not have a municipal development plan (Herauf pers. comm.). Since all other RMs crossed by the existing Line 3 pipeline are also crossed by the Line 3 replacement pipeline route, vegetation resources of management concern will not differ from those described in Appendix 9.

There are four records of SK CDC-listed rare plant occurrences known within 5 km of the existing Line 3 pipeline near Regina (SK CDC 2014a). See Appendix 9 for further details regarding these rare plant occurrences.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The existing Line 3 route near Regina is located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Manitoba Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a).

The existing Line 3 pipeline encounters two Private Conservation Lands located at S ½ 18-17-17 W2M and NE 7-17-17 W2M (SK CDC 2014a) that are avoided by the replacement pipeline route.

Tame pasture, treed pasture, native prairie riparian habitat and wetlands are present along the existing Line 3 pipeline route near Regina and provide suitable habitat for wildlife. Decommissioning activities within these habitats have the potential to disturb wildlife.

Species at Risk No Ecoregions are crossed by the existing Line 3 pipeline where it deviates from the Line 3 replacement route near Regina, Saskatchewan in addition to those crossed by the Line 3 replacement pipeline route. For this reason, there are no SARA or COSEWIC-listed rare plant species with the potential to occur

Page 5-363

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

along the existing Line 3 pipeline in addition to those already identified with potential to occur along the Line 3 replacement pipeline route near Regina.

There were no previously recorded SARA or COSEWIC-listed rare plant occurrences within 5 km of the existing Line 3 pipeline where it deviates from the Line 3 replacement pipeline route (Appendix 9) (SK CDC 2014a).

A search of the SK CDC database reported an observation of burrowing owl (Endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) within 2 km of the existing Line 3 pipeline where it deviates from the replacement pipeline route at Regina (SK CDC 2014a).

Tame, shrub and treed pasture, native prairie, riparian habitat and wetlands are present along the existing Line 3 pipeline route near Regina and provide suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status including burrowing owl (Endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC), chestnut-collared longspur, common nighthawk, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, Sprague’s pipit (all Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC), bobolink (Threatened by COSEWIC), short-eared owl and northern leopard frog (both Special Concern Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC), Baird’s sparrow and tiger salamander (both Special Concern by COSEWIC) (Environment Canada 2014, COSEWIC 2014a).

Human Occupancy and Resource Use Areas crossed by the existing Line 3 route that are not a part of the replacement pipeline LSA or RSA include the RM of South Qu’Appelle and the Town of White City. Engagement with these communities has been limited and no specific concerns or issues have been identified. It is expected that the volume of transient workers during peak construction who are involved with the decommissioning process only in these areas will be much less (60-100 workers compared to 650) than that along the replacement pipeline route, therefore any impacts to the socio-economic elements outlined in this Report are anticipated to be minimal.

5.4.2 Morden The environmental and socio-economic setting for the existing Line 3 pipeline near Morden (SKP 1201.7 to SKP 1239.9) is consistent with that of the replacement pipeline for the following elements: physical and meteorological environmental; water quality and quantity, air quality, GHG emissions, acoustic environment, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, human occupancy and resource use, TLRU, social and cultural well-being, human health, infrastructure and services, navigation and navigation safety as well as employment and economy (Section 5.1).

The environmental setting for the existing Line 3 that is not consistent with the replacement pipeline for vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat and species at risk is presented below.

Once the locations for decommissioning sites requiring ground disturbance are determined, each site will be assessed for soils and heritage resources prior to construction. Field work may be necessary based on existing information and approvals.

Vegetation The segment of the existing Line 3 pipeline near Morden does not cross any ecoregions in addition to those crossed by the Line 3 replacement pipeline route. Therefore, the rare plants and rare ecological communities with the potential to occur along the existing Line 3 pipeline do not differ from the rare plants and rare ecological communities with the potential to occur along the Line 3 replacement pipeline route.

There are no additional RMs crossed by the existing Line 3 pipeline that are not also crossed by the Line 3 replacement pipeline route in the vicinity of Morden. Consequently, there are no non-native, invasive species of concern or vegetation resources of management concern in addition to those identified along the Line 3 replacement pipeline route (Appendix 9).

Page 5-364

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

There are nine records of MB CDC-listed rare plant occurrences known within 5 km of the existing Line 3 pipeline near Morden (Enbridge 2014). See Appendix 9 for further details regarding these rare plant occurrences.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Decommissioning activities for the Morden route deviation are located within the key program area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Manitoba Implementation Plan Committee 2008, NAWMP Committee 2012) in the Prairie Pothole Region (DUC 2013a).

Tame pasture, treed pasture, riparian habitat and wetlands are present along the existing Line 3 pipeline for the Morden route deviation and provide suitable habitat for wildlife. Decommissioning activities within these habitats have the potential to disturb wildlife.

Species at Risk No ecoregions are crossed by the existing Line 3 pipeline where it deviates from the Line 3 replacement pipeline route near Morden in addition to those crossed by the Line 3 replacement pipeline route. For this reason, there are no SARA or COSEWIC-listed rare plant species with potential to occur along the existing Line 3 pipeline in addition to those already identified with potential to occur along the Line 3 replacement pipeline route.

There were no previously recorded SARA or COSEWIC-listed rare plant occurrences within 5 km of the existing Line 3 pipeline where it deviates from the Line 3 replacement pipeline route near Morden. There is one occurrence of a species listed under the Manitoba Endangered Species Act, rough agalinis, recorded within 5 km of the existing Line 3 pipeline where it deviates from the Line 3 replacement pipeline (Appendix 9) (Enbridge 2014a).

A search of the MB CDC database (Enbridge 2014a) identified two occurrences of wildlife species listed under Schedule 1 of SARA and/or COSEWIC; bobolink (Threatened by COSEWIC) and chestnut-collared longspur (Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC) with 2 km of the existing Line 3 pipeline where it deviates from the replacement pipeline at Morden, Manitoba.

Tame pasture, treed pasture, riparian habitat and wetlands are present along the existing Line 3 pipeline for the Morden route deviation and provide suitable habitat for wildlife species with special conservation status including chestnut-collared longspur, common nighthawk, loggerhead shrike (all Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC), short-eared owl and northern leopard frog (both Special Concern Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC), Baird’s sparrow and tiger salamander (both Special Concern by COSEWIC) (Environment Canada 2014, COSEWIC 2014a).

Page 5-365

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

5.5 References 5.5.1 Personal Communications TERA wishes to acknowledge those people identified in the Personal Communications for their assistance in supplying information and comments incorporated into this report.

Anonymous. Employee of Moosomin Country Squire Inn. Moosomin, SK.

Anonymous. Employee of Virden Motel. Virden, MB.

Applin, M. Economic Development Officer, Town of Kerrobert. Kerrobert, SK.

Audette, R. Administrator, Village of Bethune. Bethune, SK.

Babecy, J. Administrator, Rural Municipality of St. Andrews No. 287. Rosetown, SK.

Barna, J. Forman., Rural Municipality of Mountain View No. 318. Herschel, SK.

Beck, B. Administrator, Beaver County. Ryley, AB.

Benroth, R. Manager of Public Works. The Rural Municipality of Sherwood No. 159. Regina, SK.

Berlin, H. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Silverwood No. 123. Whitewood, SK.

Beutler, J. Administrator. The Rural Municipality of Silverwood No. 123. Whitewood, SK

Biles, M. Chief Administrative Officer, Rural Municipality of Oakland. Nesbitt, MB.

Bisht, V., Kagan, M. and Anastasia Kubinec. Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development representatives at the November 2013 Enbridge-MAFRI meeting. Carman, Manitoba.

Bohn, T. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Mariposa No. 350. Kerrobert, SK.

Booker, D. Pembina La Rivière Centennial Park Campground. La Rivière, MB.

Boudehane, M. Owner, Aspen Grove Campground. Brandon, MB.

Bramwell, B. Chief Administrative Officer, Rural Municipality of Argyle. Baldur, MB.

Bray, S. Water Utility Manager, Rural Municipality of Wallace, Virden, MB.

Brenner, D. Administrator, Village of Montmartre and Rural Municipality of Montmartre No. 126. Montmartre, SK.

Brown, G. Manager, Infrastructure Planning Branch, City of Regina. Regina, SK.

Burgess, D. City Manager, City of Winkler. Winkler, MB.

Chernykh, R. Manager, Motel 6 Moosomin. Moosomin, MB.

Cooper, M. Administrative Assistant, Town of Moosomin, Moosomin, SK.

Dakue, G. Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Kipling. Kipling, SK.

Davis, A. Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Sedgewick. Sedgewick, AB.

Delgarno, G. Water Utility Supervisor, Rural Municipality of Wallace. Virden, MB.

Deobald, R. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Mountain View No. 318. Herschel, SK.

Derksen, H. Plant Pathologist, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. Carman, MB.

Page 5-366

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Dobson, D. Field Office Engineer. Ducks Unlimited Canada – Manitoba. Brandon, MB.

Dokken-Bouchard, F. Chair, Saskatchewan Clubroot Initiative. Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture representative at the February 2014 Saskatchewan Clubroot Initiative meeting. Saskatoon, SK.

Duck, T. Administrator, Village of Grand Coulee. Grand Coulee, SK.

Duffett, G. Economic Development Officer, Town of Provost. Provost, AB.

Edom, G. Administrator, Town of Davidson. Davidson, SK.

Epp, E. Administrator, City of Morden. Morden, MB.

Fisher, J. Administrator. The Rural Municipality of Heart’s Hill No. 352. Luseland, SK.

Flannery, L. Manager, Lumsden Hotel & Steak Pit. Lumsden, SK.

Forbes, B. Agricultural Fieldman. Municipal District of Provost No. 52. Provost, AB.

Frazer, W. Administrator, Village of Maryfield. Maryfield, SK.

Friesen, C. Biodiversity Information Manager. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. Winnipeg, MB.

Froese, P. Director of Works & Operations, City of Winkler. Winkler, MB.

Gartner, K. Administrator, Town of Macklin. Macklin, SK.

Gaultier, S. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Lorne. Somerset, MB.

Gintaut, V. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Progress No. 351. Luseland, SK.

Goodsman, B. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Wilner No. 253. Davidson, SK.

Gould, L. Clerk, Village of Odessa. Odessa, SK.

Greggor, J. Chief Administrative Officer, Rural Municipality of Pipestone. Reston, MB.

Greig, L. Chief Administrative Officer, Rural Municipality of Glenwood. Souris, MB.

Gudnason, D. Foreman, Rural Municipality of Argyle. Baldur, MB.

Hagar, P. Senior Engineer, Infrastructure Planning Branch, City of Regina. Regina, SK.

Hassler, M. Operations Manager, Red Coat Waste Authority. Kipling, SK.

Heise, R. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Lajord No. 128. Lajord, SK.

Heisler, R. Administrator, Village of Vibank. Vibank, SK.

Herauf, L. Assistant Administrator. The Rural Municipality of South Qu’Apelle, No. 157. McLean, SK.

Hoff, J. Administrator, Village of Glenavon and Rural Municipality of Chester No. 125. Glenavon, SK.

Hoffman, C. Office Administrator, Village of Kendal. Kendal, SK.

Howard, R. Research Scientist, Plant Pathology. Pest Surveillance Branch, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Brooks, AB

Hullick, C. Habitat Field Manager, Manitoba Habitat and Heritage Corporation. Brandon, Manitoba. May 23, 2014.

Page 5-367

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Ippolito, J. Regional Crops Specialist, Regional Services Branch, Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. Kindersley, SK.

Israel, K. Executive Assistant, Regina Hotel Association. Regina, SK.

Jacobi, M. Canalta Hotel Moosomin. Moosomin, SK.

Jess. Y. Administrator, Village of Elbow. Elbow, SK.

Johnson, S. Weed Supervisor. The Rural Municipality of South Cypress. Glenboro, MB.

Jones, J. Administrator. The Rural Municipality of Fertile Valley No. 285. Outlook, SK.

Jones, R. City Manager, Town of Morden. Morden, MB.

Kagan, M. Director. Crops Knowledge Centre, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Carman, MB.

Kay, G. Deputy Chief, Public Safety, Planning and Prevention, City of Regina. Regina, SK.

Kemp, H. Chief Administrative Officer, Rural Municipality of Kingsley No. 124. Kipling, SK.

Kruger, G. Owner, Red Wheel Motel. Outlook, SK.

Kunz, R. Chief Administrative Officer, Rural Municipality of Sherwood No. 159. Regina, SK.

Lachance, J. Fieldstone Campground & RV Resort. Moosomin, SK.

Larson, J. Administrator, Town of Provost. Provost, AB.

Lawrason, T. Administrator, Municipal District of Provost No. 52. Provost, AB.

Legault, L. Director of Open Space and Environmental Services, City of Regina. Regina, SK.

Lewis, A. Supervisor. South West Weed District. Hartney, MB.

Listrom, P. Town Administrator, Town of Moosomin. Moosomin, SK.

Loewen, D. Community Development Officer, Town of Altona. Altona, MB.

Losie, B. Clerk, Village of Loreburn. Loreburn, SK.

Lund, G. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Oakdale No. 320. Coleville, SK.

MacDonald, R. Administrator, RM of Winslow and Village of Dodsland, Dodsland, SK.

Macksymchuk, A. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Maryfield No. 91. Maryfield, SK.

MacMillan, S. Coordinator of Landscape Design, Infrastructure Planning Branch, City of Regina. Regina, SK.

Macomber, M. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Francis No. 127, Francis, SK.

Mario, B. Senior City Planner, Current Planning Branch, City of Regina. Regina, SK.

Martin, K. Administrator. The Rural Municipality of Mountain View No. 318. Herschel, SK.

Martin, L. Owner, The Wick Motel. Sedgewick, AB.

Maxemniuk, H. Administrator, Village of Milden. Milden, SK.

McIvor, K. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Edenwold No. 158. Balgonie, SK.

Page 5-368

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Meadows, C. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Pense No. 160. Pense, SK.

Memon, S. Senior Engineer, Infrastructure Planning Branch, City of Regina. Regina, SK.

Metz, N. Administrator, Village of Fairlight. Fairlight, SK.

Michelman, T. Municipal Manager, Town of Outlook. Outlook, SK.

Millard, S. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Walpole No. 92. Wawota, SK.

Miller, K. Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Hardisty. Hardisty, AB.

Nieman, M. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Milden No. 286. Milden, SK.

Oakes, J. Chief Administrative Officer, Rural Municipality of Thompson. Miami, MB.

Olynyk, L. Planner, Rural Municipality of Edenwold No. 158. Balgonie, SK.

Patient, D. Weed Inspector. Rural Municipality of Wilner No. 253, Rural Municipality of Huron No. 223, Rural Municipality of Dufferin No. 190 and Rural Municipality of Craik No. 222. SK.

Penner, D. Super 8 Morden. Morden, MB.

Picard, R. Farm Production Advisor. Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Somerset, MB.

Piermantier, S. Administrator, Town of Rosetown. Rosetown, SK.

Pilat, J. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Eye Hill No. 382. Macklin, SK.

Plaetinck, E. Chief Administrative Officer, Village of Glenboro and Rural Municipality of South Cypress. Glenboro, MB.

Plett, L. Chief Administrative Officer, Village of Wawanesa. Wawanesa, SK.

Priestly, J. Transportation Supervisor, Rural Municipality of Wallace. Virden, MB.

Rempel, M. Chief Administrative Officer. Rural Municipality of Rhineland. Altona, MB.

Ripplinger, C. Administrator. Rural Municipality of Pense No. 160. Pense, SK.

Saville, D. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Wawken No. 93. Wawota, SK.

Sawatzsky, M. Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Gretna. Gretna, MB.

Schaefer, J. Assistant Administrator, Village of Vibank. Vibank, SK.

Schmidt, A. Area Wildlife Ecologist. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment – Melville. Melville, SK.

Sheety, M. Weed Inspector. Rural Municipality of Oakdale No. 320. Coleville, SK.

Sing, V. Owner, Balgonie Motel Motor Inn. Balgonie, SK.

Stronski, M. Administrator, Village of Loreburn. Loreburn, SK.

Stronski, N. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Loreburn No. 254, SK.

Taylor, I. conservation Programs Specialist, North East Alberta. Edmonton, AB.

Thevenot, J. Chief Administrative Officer, Rural Municipality of Wallace. Virden, MB.

Thorn, D. Economic Development Officer, City of Moose Jaw. Moose Jaw, SK.

Page 5-369

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Toews, D. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Stanley. Winkler, MB.

Trudel, S. Director of Economic Development, City of Brandon. Brandon, MB.

Unrau, W. Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Manitou. Manitou, MB.

Vinge-Mazer, S. Botanist. Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre, Regina, SK.

Wolfe, T. Assistant Administrator, Rural Municipality of Oakdale No. 320. Coleville SK.

Yates, J. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Craik No. 222. Craik, SK.

Young, J. Administrator, Rural Municipality of Pembina. Manitou, MB.

5.5.2 Literature Cited Agriculture Financial Services Corporation. 2011. Soil Zones Map. Available online at: http://www.afsc.ca/Default.aspx?cid=2102. Accessed: January 2014.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2005a. Soil Erosion Risk of the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Online map. Available online at: http://www2.agric.gov.ab.ca/icons/acis/maps/agricultural_land_resource_atlas_of_alberta/soil/soil _conservation/soil_erosion_risk_2003_big_map.png. Accessed: March 2014.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2005b. Wind Erosion Risk of the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Online map. Available online at: http://www2.agric.gov.ab.ca/icons/acis/maps/agricultural_land_resource_atlas_of_alberta/soil/soil _conservation/wind_erosion_risk_2003_big_map.png. Accessed: March 2014.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2005c. Surface Water Quality Risk for the Agricultural Area of Alberta. Pp. 42 + map in Agricultural Land Resource Atlas of Alberta. Conservation and Development Branch, Resource Management and Irrigation Division. Edmonton, AB.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2013a. Clubroot Infested Areas in Alberta, Cumulative to November 2013. Available online at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/prm14661. Accessed: January 2014.

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2013b. Map of Irrigation Districts in Alberta. Available online at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/irr12911. Accessed: January 2013

Alberta Clubroot Management Committee. 2010. Alberta Clubroot Management Plan. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Edmonton, AB. 10 pp.

Alberta Community Profiles. 2014. Home page. Available online at: http://www.albertacommunityprofiles.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Alberta Energy. 2014a. Geographic Land Information Management and Planning System (GLIMPS) search via the Electronic Transfer System. Available online at: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/includes/1076.asp/ Accessed: January 2014.

Alberta Energy. 2014b. Metallic and Industrial Minerals Agreements (digital file). Available online at: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OurBusiness/1071.asp. Acquired: November 2013. Last Update Check: November 4, 2013.

Alberta Energy. 2014c. Coal Agreements (digital file). Edmonton, Alberta. Available online at: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OurBusiness/1071.asp. Acquired: November 2013. Last Update Check: November 4, 2013.

Alberta Energy. 2014d. Coal Mine Licence Area (digital file). Edmonton, Alberta. Available online at: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OurBusiness/1071.asp. Acquired: November 2013. Last Update Check: November 4, 2013.

Page 5-370

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Alberta Energy Regulator. 2007. Directive 038: Noise Control. Prepared by the Alberta Energy and Utility Board. Calgary, AB. 53 pp.

Alberta Environment. 2008. Alberta Air Emissions Trends and Projections. Air Policy Branch. Edmonton, AB. 21 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012. Wildlife Management Units. Available online at: http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/fishing-hunting-trapping/hunting- alberta/wildlife-management-units.aspx. Accessed: March 2014.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013a. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives. Alberta Environment Air Policy. 5pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013b. Wildlife Sensitivity Data Sets (digital files). Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps- services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity-maps/default.aspx. Acquired: March 2014. Last Update Check: March 18, 2014.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2013c. Integrated Standards and Guidelines, Enhanced Approval Process. Effective: December 1, 2013. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Operations Division. Edmonton, AB. x + 94 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014a. Surface Water Quality Program. Available online at: http://environment.alberta.ca/01256.html. Accessed: February 2014.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014b. Alberta Water Well Information Database (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available online at: via ftp site, contact [email protected] for access. Acquired: February 2014. Last Update Check: February 3, 2014.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014c. Specified Gas Reporting Standard. Air and Climate Change Policy Branch. Edmonton, AB. 15 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014d. Technical Guidance for Completing Specified Gas Compliance Reports. Air and Climate Change Policy Branch. Edmonton, AB. 88 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014e. Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System Records. Received from AESRD Edmonton (Lonnie Bilyk) Office. March 23, 2014.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014f. Species Assessed by Alberta's Endangered Species Conservation Committee: Short List. Updated: July 4, 2014. 2 pp.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014g. Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://esrd.alberta.ca/forms-maps- services/maps/wildlife-sensitivity-maps/default.aspx. Acquired: August 2013. Last Update Check: November 4, 2013.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2014h. Environmental Site Assessment Repository. Available online at: http://www.environment.alberta.ca/01520.html. Accessed: February 2014.

Alberta Geological Survey. 2002. Drift Thickness of Alberta 1:2M – Map 227, DIG 2004-0050 (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/DIG_2004_0050.html. Acquired: May 2012. Last Update Check: November 12, 2013.

Page 5-371

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Alberta Geological Survey. 2013. Bedrock Geology of Alberta – Map 600, DIG 2013-0018 (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/DIG_2013_0018.html. Acquired: February 2014. Last Update Check: February 4, 2014.

Alberta Health Services. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Alberta NAWMP Partnership Management Committee. 2008. Alberta NAWMP Implementation Plan 2007- 2012, Prairie Habitat Joint Venture. Camrose, AB. 35 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species. Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. 242 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2011a. Definitions of General Status Categories. General Status of Alberta Wildlife Species. Edmonton, AB. 1 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2011b. The 2010 General Status of Alberta Wild Species. Available online at: http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/wild-species-status- search.aspx. Accessed: March 2014.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2012. Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing-2010. Edmonton, AB. 242 pp.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas of Alberta. 1:1,000,000 map.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2012. Protected Areas (Shapefile). Alberta Parks, Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://albertaparks.ca/media/2941843/parks_and_protected_areas_alberta.zip. Acquired: February 2013. Last Update Check: May 14, 2013.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2013a. Parks and Protected Areas (including Crown Reservations). 1:1,000,000 map.

Alberta Tourism Parks and Recreation. 2013b. Alberta Conservation Information Management System Element Occurrences (Part 1: Non-sensitive) (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://www.albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-land-use/alberta-conservation- information-management-system-(acims)/download-data.aspx. Acquired: September 2013. Last Update Check: October 15, 2013.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2013c. List of all Species and Ecological Communities in Alberta, within the ACIMS Database. June 2013. Government of Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://www.albertaparks.ca/media/387336/list_of_all_elements.xls. Accessed: March 2014.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2014. Environmentally Significant Areas Report. Available online at: http://albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/library/environmentally-significant-areas-report.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

AltaLIS. 2014. Alberta Municipal Boundaries (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available online at: http://www.altalis.com. Acquired: June 2014. Last Update Check: June 2, 2014.

Applied Aquatic Research Limited. 2007a. Fish Population and Riverine Habitat Inventories at Watercourse Crossings Proposed Enbridge Alberta Clipper Project. Prepared for TERA Environmental Consultants. Calgary, AB.

Applied Aquatic Research Limited. 2007b. Fish Population and Riverine Habitat Inventories at Watercourse Crossings Proposed Enbridge Southern Lights Project. Prepared for TERA Environmental Consultants. Calgary, AB.

Page 5-372

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Applied Aquatic Research Limited. 2008. Bivalve Survey on the Souris River and Deadhorse Creek. Prepared for TERA Environmental Consultants. Calgary, AB.

Assiniboine Community College. 2014. Home page. Available online at: http://public.assiniboine.net/default.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

Atton, F.M. and J.J. Merkowsky. 1983. Atlas of Saskatchewan Fish. Saskatchewan Department of Parks and Renewable Resources. Regina, SK.

Barber, S.R. 1982. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Inventory of the Swift Current (72-J) Map Area., Saskatchewan Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. Saskatoon, SK.

Barto, W.P. and C.G. Vogel. 1978. Agro-Manitoba Information Package: Report. Manitoba Lands and Surveys Division Technical Report No. 78 9. Manitoba Department of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment, Lands and Surveys Division. Winnipeg, MB. 325 pp.

Battle River School Division. 2014. List of Schools. Available online at: http://www.brsd.ab.ca/Schools/ListofSchools/Pages/Default.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

Betcher, R., G. Grove and C. Pupp. 1995. Groundwater in Manitoba: Hydrogeology, Quality Concerns, Management. Environmental Sciences Division. Saskatoon, SK. iv + 47 pp.

Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada. 2012. Important Bird Areas in Canada. Available online at: http://www.ibacanada.ca/. Accessed: April 2014.

Borden, C.E. and W. Duff. 1952. A Uniform Site Designation Scheme for Canada. Anthropology in British Columbia 3: 44–48.

Borneuf, D. 1983. Springs of Alberta. Earth Sciences Report 82-3. Alberta Research Council. Edmonton, AB.

Brandon Police Service. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://police.brandon.ca/. Accessed: January 2014.

Brandon Regional Health Authority. 2014. About Us. Available online at: http://www.brandonrha.mb.ca/en/about/. Accessed: May 2014.

Brandon School Division. 2012. About Us. Available online at: http://www.bsd.ca/Division/AboutUs/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

Brandon Tourism. 2014. Home. Available online at: http://www.brandontourism.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Brandon University. 2014. Programs & Courses. Available online at: http://www.brandonu.ca/programs- courses/. Accessed: May 2014.

Bry-Mar RV Park & Campground. 2013. Amenities. Available online at: http://www.brymarrvpark.com/index.php/amenities. Accessed: May 2014.

Buffalo Trail Public Schools. 2010. Home page. Available online at: http://www.btps.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands. 2014. The Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. Ramsar, Iran. 47 pp.

Camp Scout.com. 2014. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.campscout.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Canada Land Inventory. 1966a. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Virden 62F. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1966b. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Brandon 62G. 1:250,000 map.

Page 5-373

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Canada Land Inventory. 1966c. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Winnipeg 62H. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1967a. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Weyburn 62E. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1967b. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Melville 62L. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1968a. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Regina 72I. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1968b. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Kindersley 72N. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1968c. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Wynyard 72P. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1970a. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Wainwright 73D. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1970b. Soil Capability for Agriculture. North Battleford 73C. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Land Inventory. 1970c. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Rosetown 72O. 1:250,000 map.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2013. Rental Market Statistics. Available online at: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/esub/64725/64725_2013_B02.pdf?fr=1395700445888. Accessed: March 2014.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 1999. Environmental Operating Practice for the Upstream Petroleum Industry – Alberta Operations: Pipeline Volume. CAPP Pub. #1999-0023. Prepared by Swiss Environment and Safety; Campbell & Associates Ltd. Calgary, AB.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2013. 2010 Progress Report on the Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Winnipeg, MB. v + 60 pp.

Canadian Heritage Rivers System. 2011. The Canadian Heritage Rivers System. Available online at: http://www.chrs.ca/en/rivers.php. Accessed: February 2014.

Canadian National Railway Company. 2014. Home page. Available online at: www.cn.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Canadian Pacific Railway. 2014. Home page. Available online at: http://www.cpr.ca. Accessed: May 2014.

Cheminfo Services Inc. 2005. Best Practices for the Reduction of Air Emissions from Construction and Demolition Activities. Prepared for Environment Canada. Transboundary Issues Branch.

City of Brandon. 2007. Solid Waste Management Plan. Available online at: http://brandon.ca/images/pdf/Sanitation/SolidWasteManagementPlan.pdf. Accessed: July 2013.

City of Brandon. 2014a. Home Page. Available online at: http://economicdevelopmentbrandon.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

City of Brandon. 2014b. Brandon Fire. Available online at: http://www.brandonfire.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

City of Edmonton. 2002. Municipal Emergency Plan Hazard Analysis. Edmonton, AB. iii + 39 pp.

City of Moose Jaw. 2013. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.moosejaw.ca/. Accessed: August 2013.

City of Morden. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://mordenmb.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

City of Regina. 1981. The Noise Abatement Bylaw No. 6980. Regina, SK. 8 pp.

Page 5-374

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

City of Regina. 2010. Recreation Facility Plan. Available online at: http://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/sites/regina.ca/residents/recreation/.media/pdf/recreation_f acility_plan.pdf. Accessed: May 2014.

City of Regina. 2014a. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.regina.ca/residents/index.htm. Accessed: May 2014.

City of Regina. 2014b. Go to the Landfill. Available online at: http://www.regina.ca/residents/garbage/fleet-street-landfill/. Accessed: May 2014.

City of Winkler. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.cityofwinkler.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Cleator, H., K.A. Martin, T.C. Pratt, B. Bruederlin, M. Erickson, J. Hunt, D. Kroeker, D. Leroux, L. Skitt and D. Watkinson. 2010. Information Relevant to a Recovery Potential Assessment of Lake Sturgeon: Red-Assiniboine Rivers-Lake Winnipeg Populations (DU4). Research Document No. 2010/083. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Winnipeg, MB. 38 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2006a. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens in Canada. Ottawa, ON. xi + 107 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2006b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Mapleleaf Mussel Quadrula quadrula (Saskatchewan-Nelson Population and Great Lakes-Western St. Lawrence Population) in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 58 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2008. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the on the Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vi + 41 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2009a COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus (Great Lakes-Western St. Lawrence Population and Saskatchewan-Nelson Population) in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 40 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2009b. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens, Rocky Mountain population, Western Boreal/Prairie populations and Eastern populations, in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 69 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2011. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica in Canada. Ottawa, ON. ix + 37 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2014a. Wildlife Species Search: Database of Wildlife Species Assessed by COSEWIC. Available online at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm. Accessed: March 2014.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2014b. Candidate Wildlife Species – Part 3: The COSEWIC Candidate List. Available online at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/index_e.cfm#p3. Accessed: March 2014.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2013a. Prairie Pothole Region. Available online at: http://www.ducks.org/conservation/where-we-work/prairie-pothole-region. Accessed: April 2014.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2013b. Your Province. Available online at: http://www.ducks.ca/your-province/. Accessed: May 2014.

Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1995. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch. Ottawa/Hull. vii + 125 pp. Available online at: http://ecozones.ca/english/. Accessed: December 2013.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2000. As-built Environmental Report for the Terrace Phase I Expansion Program. Spreads A, B and C. Edmonton, AB.

Page 5-375

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2002. Post-Construction Environmental Report Terrace Phase II – Pipeline Construction. Edmonton, AB.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2009a. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report (Year 1 – Environmental As-Built Report) for the LSr Pipeline of the Southern Lights Project. Edmonton, AB.

Enbridge Inc. 2009b. Aboriginal and Native American Policy. Available online at: http://www.enbridge.com/InYourCommunity/AboriginalCommunities/~/media/www/Site%20Docu ments/In%20Your%20Community/aboriginal-native-american-policy.ashx. Accessed: June 2013.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011a. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report (Year 1) for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Spread 2. Part A: Environmental As-Built Report. Edmonton, AB.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011b. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report (Year 1) for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Spread 4. Part A: Environmental As-Built Report. Edmonton, AB.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011c. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report (Year 1) for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Spread 5. Part A: Environmental As-Built Report. Edmonton, AB.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011d. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report (Year 1) for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Spread 8. Part A: Environmental As-Built Report. Edmonton, AB.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011e. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report (Year 1) for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Spread 10. Part A: Environmental As-Built Report. Edmonton, AB.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011f. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report (Year 1) for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Spread 12. Part A: Environmental As-Built Report. Edmonton, AB.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011 and 2012. 2.5m Resolution Imagery (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Received: on DVD. Acquired: August 2012.Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2013. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Element Occurrence Database (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Received: Via email. Acquired: May 2013.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2013a. 30 cm orthorectified aerial imagery licensed by Pictometry 2012 (digital file). Received: via portable hard drive. Acquired: October 2013.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2013b. 50 cm orthorectified aerial imagery licensed by Pictometry 2012 (digital file). Received: via portable hard drive. Acquired: November 2013.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2014a. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Element Occurrence Database (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received: via email. Acquired: May 2013.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2014b. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.enbridge.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2014c. Pipeline Cost Template – Line 3 Replacement Project – Class IV (Excel spreadsheet).

Environment Canada. 2010. Water Survey of Canada - Archived Hydrometric Data. Available online at: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/index-eng.cfm. Accessed: January 2014.

Page 5-376

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Environment Canada. 2012. National Pollutant Release Inventory and Air Pollutant Emission Summaries and Trends Downloadable Datasets. Available online at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp- npri/default.asp?lang=en&n=0EC58C98-. Accessed: June 2014.

Environment Canada. 2013a. 1981-2010 Canadian Climate Normals and Averages. Available online at: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html. Accessed: April 2014.

Environment Canada. 2013b. Technical Guidance on Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (November 2013). Gatineau, QC. 30 pp.

Environment Canada. 2013c. Network of Protected Areas. Available online at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ap- pa/default.asp?lang=En&n=989C474A-1. Accessed: April 2014.

Environment Canada. 2013d. Migratory Birds Hunting Regulations, 2013–2014: Saskatchewan. Available online at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/rcom-mbhr/default.asp?lang=En&n=8AEFB24D-1No. _001. Accessed: May 2014.

Environment Canada. 2014. Species at Risk Public Registry. Available online at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm. Accessed: April 2014.

Farr, M. 2008. The Mussel Crisis. Ontario Nature, Winter 2008/2009:36 39.

Ferguson, R.S. and H.M. Hunt. 1981. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Inventory of the North Battleford (73-C) Map Area. Wildlife Technical Report 81-10. Saskatchewan Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. Regina, SK. 186 pp.

Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas. Provincial Update 2009. Report prepared for Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB. Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. Available online at: http://albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/library/environmentally-significant-areas- report.aspx. Accessed: January 2014.

Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. 2011. Aquatic Environmentally Significant Areas in Alberta. Prepared for Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development. Report No. 9030-2. Edmonton, AB.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010a. Recovery Potential Assessment of Lake Sturgeon: Saskatchewan River Populations (Designatable Unit 2). Science Advisory Report 2010/049. DFO Canada Science Advisory Secretariat. Winnipeg, MB. 24 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010b. Recovery Potential Assessment of Lake Sturgeon: Red- Assiniboine Rivers-Lake Winnipeg Populations (Designatable Unit 4). Science Advisory Report 2010/051. DFO Canada Science Advisory Secretariat. Winnipeg, MB. 27 pp.

Five Hills Health Region. 2014. Five Hills Health Region. Available online at: http://www.fhhr.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Flagstaff Regional Solid Waste Management Association. 2014. Available online at: http://www.frswma.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. New York and Oxford. 16+ vols. Available online at: http://floranorthamerica.org/. Accessed: December 2013.

Flory, M. Patricia. 1980. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Inventory of the Regina (72-I) Map Area., Saskatchewan Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. Saskatoon, SK.

FOCUS Air Quality Monitoring. 2013. Ambient Air Monitoring Report 2013 Annual Summary. Prepared for Enbridge Midstream Inc. Edmonton, AB.

Fort La Bosse School Division. 2014. About Us. Available online at: http://www.flbsd.mb.ca/division- info/about. Accessed: May 2014.

Page 5-377

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Fulton, R.J., Ed. 1989. Quaternary Geology of Canada and Greenland. Geology of Canada Series No.1. Geological Survey of Canada. Ottawa, ON. 839 pp + 5 maps.

Garden Valley School Division. 2013. Community of Schools. Available online at: http://www.gvsd.ca/index.php/gvsd-school-information/communityofschools. Accessed: May 2014.

Government of Alberta. 2012. 2011 ATR Report. Alberta Transportation. Edmonton, AB. 371 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2013a. Alberta Guide to Trapping Regulations 2013/2014. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton AB. 28 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2013b. Alberta Regulations. Available online at: http://albertaregulations.ca/. Accessed: July 2013.

Government of Alberta. 2013c. 2012 ATR Report. Alberta Transportation. Edmonton, AB. 374 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2014a. MyWildAlberta.Com. Available online at: http://mywildalberta.com. Accessed: May 2014.

Government of Alberta. 2014b. 2014 Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations. Environmental and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, AB. 104 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2014c. 2013 ATR Report. Alberta Transportation. Edmonton, AB. 374 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2014d. Strong Labour Force. Available online at: https://www.albertacanada.com/business/overview/strong-labour-force.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

Government of Canada. 2009. Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order. Available online at: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-05-09/html/notice-avis- eng.html. Accessed: January 2014.

Government of Manitoba. 2013a. The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act. Winnipeg, MB. 19 pp.

Government of Manitoba. 2013b. Manitoba Contaminated Sites List (current to September 16, 2013). Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/envprograms/contams/. Accessed: February 2014.

Government of Manitoba. 2013c. 2013/2014 Trapping Guide. Conservation and Water Stewardship, Winnipeg, MB. 28 pp.

Government of Manitoba. 2013d. Manitoba Anglers’ Guide 2013. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/fisheries/recreation/pdf/2013_anglers_guidev2. Accessed: July 2013.

Government of Manitoba. 2014a. Species listed under the Manitoba Endangered Species Act. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/sar/sarlist.html. Accessed: June 2014.

Government of Manitoba. 2014b. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/index.html. Accessed: May 2014.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2005. Soil Zones of Saskatchewan. 1 map.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2009. Bill No. 126, An Act respecting the Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases and Adaptation to Climate Change. Regina, SK. 40 pp.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2012. 2012 Traffic Volume Map. Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure. Regina, SK. 2 pp.

Page 5-378

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Government of Saskatchewan. 2013a. Irrigation Districts in Saskatchewan. Available online at: http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/irrigation-districts-map. Accessed: February 2014.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2013b. Species at Risk. Available online at: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=c2e39ae8-cbf1-4f07-8d9a-b50ce3f4fd01. Accessed: April 2014.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2013c. 2013/14 Saskatchewan Hunters' and Trappers' Guide. Ministry of Environment, Prince Albert, SK. 60 pp.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2013d. Upstream Oil and Gas Sites Spill Notification Database (Reported from June 1990 to April 2013). Available online at: http://www.economy.gov.sk.ca/Spills. Accessed: January 2014.

Government of Saskatchewan. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.gov.sk.ca. Accessed: May 2014.

Groundwater Information Network. 2013. Waterwell database - Manitoba (digital files). Available online at: http://ngwd- bdnes.cits.nrcan.gc.ca/service/api_ngwds:gin/en/downloadmanager/dataset.html?package=water wells. Acquired: February 2014. Last Update Check: February 4, 2014.

Harms, V.L., P.A. Ryan and J.A. Haraldson. 1992. The Rare and Endangered Native Vascular Plants of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Natural History Society and the W.P. Fraser Herbarium, University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, SK. 27 pp.

Hart R.T. and S.R. Barber. 1979. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Inventory of the Kindersley (72-N) Map Area, Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Saskatoon, SK.

Hart, R.T. and H.M. Hunt. 1981. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Inventory of the RosetownKindersley (72-O) Map Area., Saskatchewan Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. Saskatoon, SK.

Hart, R.T. and H.A. Stelfox. 1981. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Inventory of the Melville (62-L) Map Area., Saskatchewan Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. Saskatoon, SK.

Hlasny, R.E. 2003. Assessment of the Bigmouth Buffalo Population of Pasqua Lake. Report to the Fish and Wildlife Branch of Saskatchewan Environment. Regina, SK. 22 pp.

Holm, E., N.E. Mandrak and M.E. Burridge. 2009. The ROM Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON. 464 pp.

Holy Trinity Catholic School Division. 2014. Schools. Available online at: http://www.htcsd.ca/schools. Accessed: May 2014.

Hwang, S.F., R.J. Howard, S.E. Strelkov, B.D. Gossen and G. Peng. 2014. Management of clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) on canola (Brassica napus) in western Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 36(sup1): 49-65.

IHS Inc. 2011. Industrial Polygon Features (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Available online at: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: April 2012. Last Update Check: October 23, 2013.

IHS Inc. 2013a. IHS Enhanced Pipeline Data (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Available online at: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: November 20, 2013. Update Interval: Monthly.

IHS Inc. 2013b. IHS Wells - Surface Hole (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Available online at: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: November 20, 2013. Update Interval: Monthly.

Page 5-379

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

IHS Inc. 2013c. IHS Facility Data (digital file). Calgary, Alberta. Available online at: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: November 20, 2013. Update Interval: Monthly.

Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan. 2013a. SaskAdmin 2013 Parks (digital file). Regina, SK. Available online at: https://www.geosask.ca/Portal/ptk. Acquired: March 2013. Last Update Check: October 2, 2013.

Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan. 2013b. SaskAdmin 2013 Rural Municipality (digital file). Regina, SK. Available online at: https://www.geosask.ca/Portal/ptk. Acquired: March 2013. Last Update Check: October 2, 2013.

Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2014. Available online at: http://www.itis.gov/. Accessed: February 2014.

Johnson, R.P. 1963. Studies on the life history and ecology of the bigmouth buffalo, Ictiobus cyprinellus (Valenciennes). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 20(6):1397-1429.

Kershaw, L., J. Gould, D. Johnson and J. Lancaster. 2001. Rare Vascular Plants of Alberta. University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, AB. 484 pp.

Leavitt, P.R., C.S. Brock, C. Ebel and A. Patoine. 2006. Landscape-scale effects of urban nitrogen on a chain of freshwater lakes in central North America. Limnology and Oceanography 51(5): 2262-2277.

Living Sky School Division. 2014. School List. Available online at: http://www.lskysd.ca/Schools/schools/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

Loraas Disposal. 2014. Loraas Landfill. Available online at: http://www.loraas.ca/disposal/facility/northern- landfill/. Accessed: May 2014.

Luba. L.D. 1987. Genesis of Solonetzic Soils in Relation to Hydrology in Southern Saskatchewan. University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, SK. 264 pp.

Macdonald, R. and W.L. Simmon. 1999. Geological Map of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Energy and Mines. 1:1,000,000 map.

Mackie, G., T.J. Morris and D. Ming. 2008. Protocol for the Detection and Relocation of Freshwater Mussel Species at Risk in Ontario-Great Lakes Area. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2790. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario-Great Lakes Area. Burlington, ON. vi + 50 pp.

Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. 2013a. Media Bulletin, March 1, 2013: Clubroot Testing Underscores Importance of Disease Prevention – Producers Encouraged to Follow Best Management Practices. Available online at: http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?item=16834. Accessed: January 2014.

Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. 2013b. Government of Manitoba – Crops Knowledge Centre. Detection of Clubroot DNA in Manitoba Soils, April 3, 2013 letter.

Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. 2013c. Declaration of Noxious Weeds in Manitoba. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/weeds/declaration-of-noxious-weeds- in-mb.html. Accessed: December 2013.

Manitoba Community Planning Services. 2007. Manitoba Municipal Boundaries (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/adminbnd/index.html. Acquired: June 2011. Last Update Check: June 2012.

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. 2005. Manitoba Ambient Air Quality Criteria. 5 pp.

Page 5-380

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. 2013. Wildlife Management Areas (interactive map). Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/habcons/wmas/gMap/. Accessed: December 2013.

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. 2014a. Air Quality Management in Manitoba. Available online at: http://gov.mb.ca/conservation/envprograms/airquality/index.html. Accessed: June 2014.

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. 2014b. Manitoba Air Quality. Available online at: http://web20.gov.mb.ca/EnvistaWeb/Default.ltr.aspx. Accessed: June 2014.

Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. 2014c. The Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/stopais/zebra_mussel.html. Accessed: February 2014.

Manitoba Conversation Data Centre. 2013a. Manitoba Conversation Data Centre Species of Conservation Concern. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc/consranks.html. Accessed: December 2013.

Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. 2013b. Occurrence of Species by Ecoregion. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc/ecoregions.html. Accessed: December 2013 to February 2014.

Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. 2014. Ecoregion Search. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/cdc/ecoregions.html. Accessed: December 2013 to February 2014.

Manitoba Department of Conservation. 1986. Aquifer Maps of Southern Manitoba (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/mli_data/index.html. Acquired: June 2010. Last Update Check: June 2012.

Manitoba Department of Conservation. 2011. Protected Areas Boundaries (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/mli_data/index.html. Acquired: December 2011. Last Update Check: June 2012.

Manitoba Geological Survey. 2006a. Surficial Geology of the Virden Map Sheet (NTS 62F), Manitoba. Surficial Geology Compilation Map Series SG-62F. 1:250,000 map.

Manitoba Geological Survey. 2006b. Surficial Geology of the Brandon Map Sheet (NTS 62G), Manitoba. Surficial Geology Compilation Map Series SG-62G. 1:250,000 map.

Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation. 2012. What is a Conservation Agreement? Available online at: http://www.mhhc.mb.ca/learn_more/what-is-a-conservation-agreement. Accessed June 2014.

Manitoba Implementation Plan Committee. 2008. Manitoba NAWMP Implementation Plan: 2007-2012 (Final Draft). Prepared for the Manitoba NAWMP Partnership and Prairie Habitat Joint Venture. Winnipeg, MB. xii +45 pp.

Manitoba Innovation, Energy and Mines. 2012a. Mineral Leases (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/mrd/geo/gis/index.html. Acquired: June 2012. Last Update Check: June 2012.

Manitoba Innovation, Energy and Mines. 2012b. Mineral Exploration Licenses (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/mrd/geo/gis/index.html. Acquired: June 2012. Last Update Check: June 2012.

Manitoba Innovation, Energy and Mines. 2012c. Mining Claims (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/mrd/geo/gis/index.html. Acquired: June 2012. Last Update Check: June 2012.

Page 5-381

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Manitoba Mineral Resources Division. 1979. Geological Map of Manitoba 1:1M (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/mli_data/index.html. Acquired: June 2010. Last Update Check: June 2012.

Manitoba Mineral Resources Division. 2007. Detailed Surficial Geology of Manitoba (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: http://web15.gov.mb.ca/mapgallery/mgg-gmm.html. Acquired: January 2014. Last Update Check: January 29, 2014.

Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative. 2012. Manitoba’s Natural Regions: May 2012 map. Manitoba Water Stewardship. 2011. Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines. Report 2011 01. Winnipeg, MB.

Manitoba Water Stewardship. 2011. Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines. Report 2011 01. Winnipeg, MB.

McCulloch, B.R. and W.G. Franzin. 1996. Fishes Collected from the Canadian Portion of the Assiniboine River Drainage. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2087. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Central and Arctic Region. Winnipeg, MB. v + 62 pp.

Meadowlark Campground. 2014. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.meadowlarkcampground.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd. 2014a. Pre-disturbance Site Assessment and Soil Handling Recommendations Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Line 3 Replacement Program Facility Construction. Prepared for TERA Environmental Consultants on behalf of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, AB.

Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd. 2014b. Soil Survey and Reclamation Suitability Evaluation for the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Program. Prepared for TERA Environmental Consultants on behalf of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, AB.

Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd and Genesis Environmental Ltd. 1997. Soil Survey and Reclamation Suitability Evaluation for the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. Terrace Phase I Expansion Program. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, AB.

Milani, D.W. 2013. Fish Community and Fish Habitat Inventory of Streams and Constructed Drains Throughout Agricultural Areas of Manitoba (2002-2006). Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Winnipeg, MB. xvi + 6,153 pp.

Moose Jaw Police Service. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.mjpolice.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Morden Motor Inn. 2012. Accommodations. Available online at: http://mordeninn.com/accomodations/. Accessed: May 2014.

Moss, E.H. 1983. Flora of Alberta. Second Edition. Revised by J.G. Packer. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, ON. 687 pp.

Municipal District of Provost No.52. 2014. Waste Management Authority. Available online at: http://www.mdprovost.ca/wasteTransferSites.php. Accessed: May 2014.

Mussio Ventures Ltd. 2010a. Central Alberta Backroad Mapbook. Backroad Mapbooks, Coquitlam, BC. 136 pp.

Mussio Ventures Ltd. 2010b. Manitoba Backroad Mapbook. Backroad Mapbooks, Coquitlam, BC. 168 pp.

Mussio Ventures Ltd. 2013. Saskatchewan Backroad Mapbook. Backroad Mapbooks, Coquitlam, BC. 208 pp.

National Energy Board. 2014a. Filing Manual. Inclusive of Release 2014-01 (January 2014). Calgary, AB. 258 pp.

Page 5-382

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

National Energy Board. 2014b. Canadian Regulated Pipelines – Pipeline Ruptures (Updated November 7, 2013). Available online at: http://www.neb.clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/pplnrptrs/pplnrptrs- eng.html. Accessed: February 2014.

National Wetlands Working Group. 1988. Wetlands of Canada: Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 24. Sustainable Development Branch, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario and Polyscience Publications Inc., Montreal, QC. 452 pp.

National Wetlands Working Group. 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System, Second Edition. B.G. Warner and C.D.A. Rubec (Eds.). Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON. vi + 68 pp.

Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852. 254 pp + 1 map.

Natural Resources Canada. 1986. Canada: Wetland Regions. National Atlas of Canada, 5th Edition. Online Map. Available online at: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/water.html. Accessed: August 2013.

Natural Resources Canada. 2000-2008. Canadian Digital Elevation Data 50k (digital files). Sherbrooke, QC. Available online at: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cded/index.html. Acquired: 2008. Last Update Check: December 2010.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009a. Permafrost [map]. The Atlas of Canada, 6th Edition. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Ottawa, ON. 1 pp.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009b. Major Landslides Causing Fatalities [map]. The Atlas of Canada, 6th Edition. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Ottawa, ON. 1 pp.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009c. Potential Impacts: Wind Erosion Risk and Climate Sensitivity – Atlas of Canada, 6th Edition. Available online at: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess- sst/df3aaf11-8893-11e0-aaa0-6cf049291510.html. Accessed: January 2014.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009d. Major Tornadoes – Atlas of Canada, 6th Edition. Available online at: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/ddddde30-8893-11e0-8cfe- 6cf049291510.html?pk_campaign=recentItem. Accessed: January 2014.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009e. Fire Danger Rating, 2009 – Atlas of Canada, 6th Edition. Available online at: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/dd314a80-8893-11e0-b445- 6cf049291510.html. Accessed: January 2014.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009f. Major Hailstorms – Atlas of Canada, 6th Edition. Available online at: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/ddbbfe4f-8893-11e0-b366- 6cf049291510.html?pk_campaign=recentItem. Accessed: January 2014.

Natural Resources Canada. 2010a. Seismic Hazard Map – Geological Survey of Canada. Available online at: http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/simphaz-eng.php. Accessed: January 2014.

Natural Resources Canada. 2010b. Seismic Hazard Map # 5 (of 5) – 2010 National Building Code of Canada. Available online at: http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/zoning- zonage/NBCC2010maps-eng.php. Accessed: January 2014.

Natural Resources Engineering Co. 2011. Canada Line 1 NGL 2010 Class Location Survey. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

NatureServe 2013. NatureServe Explorer – An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm. Accessed: January 2014.

Page 5-383

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Nature Conservancy Canada. 2013a. Oak Lake Sandhills and Wetlands Natural Area. Available online at: http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/what-we-do/conservation-explorer/aspen-parkland/oak-lake- sandhills-and-wetlands/. Accessed: June 2014.

Nature Conservancy Canada. 2013b. Natural Areas Conservation Program. Available online at: http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/what-we-do/conservation-program/. Accessed: June 2014.

Nelson, J.S. and M.J. Paetz. 1992. The Fishes of Alberta, 2nd Edition. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, AB and University of Calgary Press, Calgary, AB. 437 pp.

Nielsen, E., S. Ringrose, G.L.D. Matile, H.D. Groom, M.A. Mihychuk and G.G. Conley. 1981. Surficial Geological Map of Manitoba. Geoscientific Map 81-1. Manitoba Energy and Mines, Mineral Resources Division. 1:1,000,000 map.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee. 2012. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2012: People Conserving Waterfowl and Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. xx + 48 pp.

North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance. 2005. The North Saskatchewan in Alberta. pp 25-31 in State of the North Saskatchewan. North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance. Edmonton, AB.

North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance. 2010. Proposed Site-Specific Water Quality Objectives for the Mainstem of the North Saskatchewan River. Edmonton, AB.

Oak Lake and Area. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.oaklakeandarea.com/cim/63.dhtm. Accessed: May 2014.

Ocean Man First Nation. 2013. Home. Available online at: http://www.oceanmanband.com/?go=home Accessed: August 2013.

Outlook & District Regional Park. 2013. Home. Available online at: http://www.outlookregpark.ca/index.html. Accessed: May 2014.

Padbury, G.A. and Acton, D.F. 1994. Ecoregions of Saskatchewan. Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Research Branch. Agricultural and Agri food Canada.

Paopst, R. 2012. Traffic on Manitoba Highways. Prepared for Manitoba Highway Traffic Information System, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation. Winnipeg, MB.

Partners for the Saskatchewan River Basin. 2009. From the Mountains to the Sea: Summary of the State of the Saskatchewan River Basin. Prepared by R. Halliday & Associates Ltd. and SLM McLeod Consulting. Saskatoon, SK.

Pembina Valley Inn. 2012. About Us. Available online at: http://www.pembinavalleyinn.com/about-us/. Accessed: May 2014.

Pettapiece, W.W. 1986. Physiographic Subdivisions of Alberta. Agriculture Canada. 1:1,500,000 map.

Pip, E. 1995. Cadmium, lead and copper in freshwater mussels from the Assiniboine River, Manitoba, Canada. Journal of Molluscan Studies 16(3):295-302.

Prairie Oasis Tourist Complex. 2013. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.prairie-oasis.com/. Accessed: September 2013.

Prairie Rose School Division. 2014. Home page. Available online at: http://www.prsdmb.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Prairie South School Division. 2014. Prairie South School Division No. 210 of Saskatchewan. Available online at: https://www.prairiesouth.ca/division/fast-facts.html. Accessed: May 2014.

Page 5-384

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Prairie Valley School Division. 2014. Prairie Valley School Division No. 208. Available online at: http://www.pvsd.ca/Schools/SDMap/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

Prior, G.J., B. Hathway, P.M. Glombick, D.I. Pana, C.J. Banks, D.C. Hay, C.L. Schneider, M. Grobe, R. Elgr and J.A. Weiss. 2013. Bedrock Geology of Alberta; Energy Resources Conservation Board, ERCB/AGS Map 600. 1:1,000,000 map.

Provost Fire and Rescue. 2012. Welcome. Available online at: http://www.provostfire.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

RL&L Environmental Services Ltd. 1998. Fisheries Assessment for the IPL Terrace Phase I Expansion Program. Prepared for TERA Environmental Consultants. Edmonton, AB.

Red River Basin Board. 2000. Inventory Team Report: Hydrology. Moorhead, MN.

Red River Basin Board. 2001. Inventory Team Report: Water Quality. Moorhead, MN.

Red River College. 2014. About Red River College. Available online at: http://www.rrc.ca/index.php?pid=46. Accessed: May 2014.

Regina Police Services. 2011. Regina Police Services Strategic Plan 2011-2014. Regina, SK. 39 pp.

Regina Police Services. 2013. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.reginapolice.ca/. Accessed: December 2013.

Remnant, R.A., J.B. Eddy, R.L. Bretecher and S.L. Davies. 2000. Species Composition, Abundance and Distribution of Fish in the Red and Assiniboine Rivers within the City of Winnipeg Ammonia Criteria Study Area, 1999. Winnipeg, MB. 61 pp.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/index- eng.htm. Accessed: May 2014.

Royer, F. and R. Dickinson. 1999. Weeds of Canada and the Northern United States. Lone Pine Publishing and the University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, AB. 470 pp.

Rural Municipality of Craik and Town of Craik. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.craik.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Rural Municipality of Edenwold No. 158. 2010. Official Community Plan, Bylaw No. 2010-10. Prepared by T. Cheesman and K. Sander, Professional Planners. RM of Edenwold, SK. 72 pp.

Rural Municipality of Heart's Hill. 2010. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.heartshill.ca/index.php. Accessed: May 2014.

Rural Municipality of Francis No. 127. 2012. Zoning Bylaw No. 2012-3. RM of Francis, SK. 98 pp.

Rural Municipality of Lorne. 2008. Bylaw No. 1719/08. RM of Lorne, MB. 5 pp.

Rural Municipality of Lorne. 2010. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.lornemanitoba.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Rural Municipality of Oakland. 2012. By-law No. 1292/12. Nesbitt, MB. 3 pp.

Rural Municipality of Pembina. 2010. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.rmofpembina.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Rural Municipality of Pense No. 160. 2013. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.pense160.ca/. Accessed: July 2013.

Rural Municipality of Pipestone. 1992. Noise By-Law No. 11/92. RM of Pipestone, MB. 3 pp.

Page 5-385

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Rural Municipality of Pipestone. 2001. Zoning Bylaw No. 2001/05. Prepared by Lombard North Group (1984) Ltd., Winnipeg, MB. 65 pp.

Rural Municipality of Pipestone. 2012. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.rmofpipestone.com/default.asp. Accessed: May 2014.

Rural Municipality of Sherwood No. 159. 2013. It’s time…Vision 2040 Official Community Plan, Bylaw No. 15/13. Prepared by Dillon Consulting. RM of Sherwood, SK. 95 pp.

Rural Municipality of Silverwood No. 123. 2007. Nuisance Abatement Bylaw No. 5-07. Whitewood, SK. 4 pp.

Rural Municipality of St. Andrews. 2010. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.rmofstandrews.com/. Accessed: January 2014.

Rural Municipality of Stanley. 2010. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.rmofstanley.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre. 2008. Species Lists - Expected Species List By Ecoregion. Available online at: http://www.biodiversity.sk.ca/ftp.htm.

Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre. 2012a. Provincial Rank Definitions. Regina, SK. 3 pp.

Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre. 2012b. Ecoregions of Saskatchewan. Available online at: http://www.biodiversity.sk.ca/eco.htm. Accessed: December 2013.

Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre. 2014a. Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre Element Occurrence Database (digital file). Regina, SK. Available online at: http://gisweb1.serm.gov.sk.ca/wildlifelogin/form.asp. Acquired: July 2014. Last Update Check: July 3, 2014.

Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre. 2014b. Saskatchewan Vascular Plant Species List. Regina, SK. 136 pp.

Saskatchewan East Enterprise Region. 2012. Moosomin Community Profile. Available online at: http://www.moosomin.com/index.php. Accessed: May 2014.

Saskatchewan Energy and Mines. 1997. Surficial Geology Map of Saskatchewan. 1:1,000,000 map.

Saskatchewan Energy and Mines. 1999. Geological Map of Saskatchewan. 1:1,000,000 map.

Saskatchewan Energy and Resources. 1997. Surficial Geology (digital file). Regina, SK. Available online at: http://www.infomaps.gov.sk.ca/Available online at/SIR_Geological_Atlas/viewer.htm. Acquired: February 2014. Last Update Check: February 3, 2014.

Saskatchewan Energy and Resources. 2012. Bedrock Geology (digital file). Regina, SK. Available online at: http://www.infomaps.gov.sk.ca/Available online at/SIR_Geological_Atlas/viewer.htm. Acquired: February 2014. Last Update Check: February 3, 2014.

Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology. 2014. Listing of Programs. Available online at: http://gosiast.com/programs-and-courses/browse-programs/a-z-listing.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 2014. 2014 Guide to Crop Protection: Weeds, Plant Diseases, Insects. Regina, SK. 554 pp.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 1996. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Regina, SK. 1 pp.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2011. Saskatchewan Air Quality 2000-2009 Report. Regina, SK. iii + 22 pp.

Page 5-386

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2012. Solid Waste Management Facilities. Regina, SK. 32 pp.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013. Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF). Available online at: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/fwdf. Accessed: May 2014.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2014a. Air Quality Monitoring. Available online at: http://environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=c54a7d47-c51c-4454-a24c-e16e264a4052. Accessed: June 2014.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2014b. Climate Change. Available online at: http://environment.gov.sk.ca/climatechange. Accessed: June 2014.

Saskatchewan NAWMP Technical Committee. 2008. Saskatchewan NAWMP Implementation Plan 2001-2026: Five Year Plan April 2007-April 2012. Prepared for the Saskatchewan North American Waterfowl Management Plan Partnership and the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture. Regina, SK. 73 pp.

Saskatchewan Soil Survey. 1987. The Soils of Montmartre Rural Municipality No. 126. Saskatchewan Institute of Pedology Publication S204. University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, SK. 43 pp.

Saskatchewan Research Council. 2007. Range Ecoregions Merge (digital file). Saskatoon, SK. Available: Via CD, http://www.pcap-sk.org/docs/6_skecositeguide/Ecoregions_and_Ecosites.pdf for more info. Acquired: March 2010. Last Update Check: September 2011.

Saskatchewan Water Security Agency. 2006. Surface Water Quality Objectives: Interim Edition. Regina, SK. 11 pp.

Saskatchewan Water Security Agency. 2012. State of Lake Diefenbaker. Prepared for Consultation Meeting on May 30, 2012. Moose Jaw, SK. 104 pp.

Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. 2006. Assiniboine River Watershed Source Water Protection Plan. Assiniboine River Watershed Source Water Protection. Yorkton, SK. 54 pp.

Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. 2013. Ground Water Wells (digital file). Moose Jaw, SK. Available online at: https://www.geosask.ca/Portal/ptk. Acquired: October 2013. Last Update Check: October 3, 2013

Secure Energy Resources. 2014. Virden Municipal & Industrial Waste Facility. Available online at: http://www.secure-energy.ca/our-services/landfills/virden-municipal-industrial-waste-facility. Accessed: May 2014.

Shetsen, I. 1990. Quaternary Geology, Central Alberta (Map 213). Alberta Research Council, Natural Resources Division. 1:50,000 map.

Shop Saskatchewan. 2014. Prairie Pride Motel. Available online at: http://www.shopsaskatchewan.com/moosomin/prairie-pride-motel.htm. Accessed: May 2014.

Simpson, M.A. 1997. Surficial Geology Map of Saskatchewan., Saskatchewan Energy and Mines/Saskatchewan Research Council. 1:1,000,000 map.

Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance. 2013. Home. Available online at: http://www.svdngovernance.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Soil Classification Working Group. 1998. The Canadian System of Soil Classification, 3rd Edition. Publication 1646. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch. Ottawa, ON. xiii + 187 pp.

Soils of Canada. n.d. Soil Zones of the Canadian Prairies. Available online at: http://www.soilsofcanada.ca/images/SCZ_map.jpg. Accessed: January 2014.

Page 5-387

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

South East Alberta Watershed Alliance. 2009. Surface Water Quality in the South Saskatchewan River Basin. SEAWA Watershed Report 2009-5. Medicine Hat, AB.

South East Cornerstone Public School Division. 2010. About Us. Available online at: http://www.cornerstonesd.ca/aboutdivision/about/Pages/Default.aspx. Accessed: May 2014.

South Saskatchewan River Watershed Stewards Inc. 2013. Water Quality in the South SK River Basin. Available online at: http://www.southsaskriverstewards.ca/water-quality-assessment.html. Accessed: January 2013.

Southeast Saskatchewan Airshed Association. 2014. Passive Average Trends. Available online at: http://sesaa.ca/airQuality/trends.php. Accessed: June 2014.

Southeast Regional College. 2010. About Southeast Regional College. Available online at: http://www.southeastcollege.org/about.htm. Accessed: May 2014.

Southern Health-Santé Sud. 2013. Home. Available online at: http://www.southernhealth.ca/. Accessed: December 2013.

Southwest Horizon School Division. 2014. Our Schools. Available online at: http://www.shmb.ca/index.php/our-schools.html. Accessed: May 2014.

Star Motel Morden. 2013. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.starmotelmorden.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Statistics Canada. 2012. 2011 Census Profile. Available online at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed: November 2012.

Statistics Canada. 2013. NHS Profile. Available online at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp- pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed: September, October 2013.

Stelfox, A. Harry. 1979. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Inventory of the Weyburn (62E) – Virden (62F) Map Area., Saskatchewan Department of Parks and Renewable Resources, Wildlife Branch. Saskatoon, SK.

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

Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie Region. Resource Publication No. 92. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 57 pp.

Strelkov, S.E., T. Cao, M. Hartman, J.P. Tewari, R.J. Howard and S.F Hwang. 2008. Clubroot Detection and Measurement. PowerPoint Presentation.

Strelkov, S.E. and S.F. Hwang. 2014. Clubroot in the Canadian canola crop: 10 years into the outbreak. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 36(sup1): 27-36.

Strelkov, S.E., V.P. Manolli, M.W. Harding, S.F Hwang, N. Poscente, S.L.I. Lisowski, C.A. Pugh and D.A. Burke. 2013. The Occurrence of Clubroot on Canola in Alberta in 2013. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB and Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Brooks, AB. 4pp

TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. 1994. Survey of Fauna with Special Conservation Status for the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. 1994 Capacity Expansion Program. Prepared for Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. 1996. Wildlife Survey for the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. System Expansion Program Phase II. Prepared for Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. 1998. Survey of Wildlife and Habitat along the Route of the Interprovincial Pipeline Inc. Terrace Phase I Expansion Program. Prepared for Interprovincial PipeLine Inc. Calgary, AB.

Page 5-388

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. 2000. Terrace Phase I Expansion Program 2000 Post- Construction Monitoring Report. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants (Alta.) Ltd. 2001. Terrace Phase I Expansion Program 2001 Post- Construction Monitoring Report. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2007a. Wildlife and Habitat Survey for the Proposed Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2007b. Wildlife and Habitat Survey for the Proposed Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Southern Lights Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2007c. Wetland Characterization Survey for the Proposed Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Southern Lights Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2007d. Engagement Log for the Proposed Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008a. Supplemental Wildlife and Habitat Survey for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Hardisty to Cromer Segment. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008b. Supplemental Wildlife and Habitat Survey for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Southern Lights Project and Alberta Clipper Project – Cromer to US Border Segment. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2009a. Preconstruction Wildlife Surveys for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project – Report 1. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2009b. Preconstruction Wildlife Surveys for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project – Report 2. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2009c. Preconstruction Wildlife Surveys for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project – Report 3. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2010a. RE: Spread 8 Pre-clean-up Wildlife Surveys for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project – Report 1. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2010b. RE: Spread 8 Pre-clean-up Wildlife Surveys for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project – Report 2. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2010c. Wetland Function Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project 2010 – First Year. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2010d. Wildlife Survey for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2010 Craik Station Construction Activities. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2011a. Wetland Function Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Southern Lights Project – First Year. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2011b. Wetland Function Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Southern Lights Project – Second Year. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012a. Wetland Function Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project 2011 – First Year. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

Page 5-389

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012b. Wetland Function Post-Construction Monitoring Report for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project 2011 – Second Year. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012c. KP R 12.2 – KP R 12.3 Wildlife Sweep Report. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012d. KP 751.6 – KP 752.0 Wildlife Sweep Report. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012e KP 754.8 – KP 755.0 Wildlife Sweep Report. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012f. KP 764.0 – KP 764.1 Wildlife Sweep Report. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012g. KP 827.6 – KP 827.68 Wildlife Sweep Report. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2012h. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment for the Proposed Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Capacity Expansion Project. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2013. Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment for the Proposed Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Expansion Project – Phase II. Prepared for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB.

TERA, A CH2M Hill Company. 2014. Digitized land use data (digital file). Calgary, AB.

Tetra Tech WEI Inc. 2013. Lake Minnewasta Carrying Capacity Study. Prepared for the M.S.T.W. Planning District. Winnipeg, MB.

Tourism Moose Jaw. 2014. 2014 Moose Jaw Visitor Guide. Moose Jaw, SK. 44 pp.

Tourism Regina. 2013. Campgrounds. Available online at: http://tourismregina.com/stay/campgrounds/. Accessed: May 2014.

Tourism Saskatchewan. 2014. Saskatchewan Hunting. Available online at: http://www.sasktourism.com/things-to-do/saskatchewan-hunting. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Altona. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: https://altona.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Balgonie. 2006. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.townofbalgonie.ca/start.html. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Carman. 2012. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.carmanmanitoba.ca/. Accessed: January 2014.

Town of Davidson. 2014. Town of Davidson Homepage. Available online at: www.townofdavidson.com. Accessed: January 2014.

Town of Gretna. 2012. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.gretna.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Hardisty. 2013. Home page. Available online at: http://www.hardisty.ca/index.htm. Accessed: June 2013.

Town of Kerrobert. 2013. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.kerrobertsk.com/. Accessed: June 2013.

Town of Kipling. 2010. Bylaw 9-2010. Town of Kipling, Kipling, SK. 5pp.

Page 5-390

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Town of Kipling. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.townofkipling.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Lumsden. 2007. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.lumsden.ca/lumsden/index.php. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Macklin. 2014. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.macklin.ca/index.php. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Manitou. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.townofmanitou.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Moosomin. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.moosomin.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Outlook. 2009. Home Page. Available online at: http://town.outlook.sk.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Provost. 2014. Home page. Available online at: http://www.provost.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Rosetown. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.rosetown.ca/. Accessed: January 2014.

Town of Sedgewick. 2013. Home page. Available online at: http://www.sedgewick.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Souris Manitoba. 2009a. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.sourismanitoba.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Souris Manitoba. 2009b. Garbage Collection. Available online at: http://www.sourismanitoba.com/garbage-collection.html. Accessed: May 2014.

Town of Virden. 2013. Home page. Available online at: http://www.virden.ca/. Accessed: June 2014.

Town of White City. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.whitecity.ca/index. Accessed: May 2014.

Trans Canada Trail Association. 2014. Trans Canada Trail (digital file). Montreal, QC. Acquired: via email, visit: http://tctrail.ca/for more info. Acquired: June 2014. Last Update Check: June 4, 2014.

Transport Canada. 2010a. Navigable Waters Protection Program Application Guide. Available online at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-nwpp-guide-2053.htm. Accessed: January 2014.

Transport Canada. 2010b. Minor Waters User Guide. Catalogue No. T29-60/2009E. Ottawa, ON. ii + 18 pp.

Travel Manitoba. 2014. Hunting in Manitoba: What You'll Hunt. Available online at: http://huntfishmanitoba.ca/go-hunting/what-youll-hunt. Accessed: May 2014.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2014. Directory of Federal Real Property/Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory – Map Navigator. Available online at: https://map-carte.tbs-sct.gc.ca/map- carte/fcsi-rscf/map-carte.aspx?Language=EN. Accessed: January 2014.

Turtle Crossing Campground. 2014. Facilities. Available online at: http://www.turtlecrossing.ca/Facilities.html. Accessed: May 2014.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2014. World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Available online at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/world-network-wnbr/. Accessed: June 2014.

Page 5-391

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

University of Regina. 2014. Undergraduate Degree Programs. Available online at: http://www.uregina.ca/futurestudents/programs/index.html. Accessed: May 2014.

Village of Bethune. 2014. Village of Bethune Homepage. Available online at: http://villageofbethune.com. Accessed: January 2014.

Village of Elbow. 2014. Homepage. Available online at: http://elbowsask.com/. Accessed: January 2014.

Village of Glenavon. 2014. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.glenavonsk.ca/index.php. Accessed: May 2014.

Village of Glenboro. 2011. By-Law No. 730. Glenboro, MB. 5 pp.

Village of Glenboro. 2012. Home. Available online at: http://glenboro.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Village of Grand Coulee. 1997. Bylaw 5/97. Grand Coulee, SK. 4 pp.

Village of Grand Coulee. 2014. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.grandcoulee.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Village of Maryfield. 2014. Home page. Available online at: http://www.maryfieldsaskatchewan.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Village of Milden. 2013. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.villageofmilden.com/. Accessed: June 2013.

Village of Montmartre. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.montmartre-sk.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Village of Odessa. 2000. A Bylaw to Control and Regulate Noise. Odessa, SK. 2 pp.

Village of Odessa. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.villageofodessa.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

Village of Vibank. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.vibank.ca/. Accessed: July, May 2014.

Village of Wawanesa. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.wawanesa.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Virden Central Hotel. 2010. Accommodations. Available online at: http://www.virdencentralhotel.com/index.php?pageid=4. Accessed: May 2014.

WaterWolf Economic Developments Inc. 2013. WaterWolf Growth Management Plan 2025, A Comprehensive Growth Agenda to Guide Development Within the WaterWolf District. Outlook, SK. Iii + 81 pp.

West Yellowhead Waste Resource Authority Inc. 2014. About WYWRA. Available online at: http://www.wywra.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 2012. Sites in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (interactive map). Available online at: http://www.whsrn.org/sites/map- sites/sites-western-hemisphere-shorebird-reserve-network. Accessed: May 2014.

Western Yellowhead Air Management Zone. 2014. Denzil Passive Trends. Available online at: http://www.wyamz.ca/airQuality/trends.php?stnID=9. Accessed: June 2014.

White Butte Regional Planning Committee. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://whitebutte.wpmu.gp-inc.ca/. Accessed: May 2014.

Page 5-392

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Winkler Centennial Golf Course. 2014. Home page. Available online at: www.winklergolfcourse.com. Accessed: May 2014.

Winkler Police Service. 2014. Home Page. Available online at: http://www.winklerpolice.ca/index.html. Accessed: May 2014.

World Health Organization. 1946. Constitution of the World Health Organization. International Health Conference. New York, NY. 20 pp.

World Web Technologies Inc. 2014. Homepage. Available online at: http://www.worldweb.com/. Accessed: May 2014.

5.5.3 GIS and Mapping Data This subsection includes references cited on the figures accompanying this report.

Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation. 2012. Protected Areas (pashape_ocsites_10tm) (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/library/downloadable- data-sets.aspx. Acquired: February 2013. Last Update Check: May 14, 2013.

AltaLIS. 2014. Alberta Municipal Boundaries (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available online at: http://www.altalis.com. Acquired: June 2014. Last Update Check: July 2, 2014. Alberta Municipal Boundaries (digital file). Calgary, AB.

ESRI. 2005. Canada Major Roads (digital file). Redlands, CA. Available online at: http://www.esri.com/data/data-maps/index.html, data came with ArcGIS software. Acquired: September 2006. Last Update Check: N/A.

Government of Canada. 2014. Aboriginal Lands, Canada (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://www.geobase.ca. Acquired: July 2014. Last Update Check: July 10, 2014.

IHS Inc. 2013. IHS Miscellaneous Boundaries (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available online at: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: July 2013. Last Update Check: April 21, 2014.

Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan. 2014. SaskAdmin 2014 Parks (digital file). Regina, SK. Available online at: https://www.geosask.ca/Portal/ptk. Acquired: February 2014. Last Update Check: July 10, 2014.

Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan. 2014. SaskAdmin 2014 Urban Municipality (digital file). Regina, SK. Available online at: https://www.geosask.ca/Portal/ptk. Acquired: February 2014. Last Update Check: February 20, 2014.

Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan. 2014. Sask Cartographic Rural Municipality (digital file). Regina, SK. Available online at: https://www.geosask.ca/Portal/ptk. Acquired: February 2014. Last Update Check: February 20, 2014.

Manitoba Community Planning Services. 2007. Manitoba Municipal Boundaries (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/adminbnd/index.html. Acquired: June 2011. Last Update Check: June 2014.

Manitoba Department of Conservation. 2011. Protected Areas Boundaries (digital file). Winnipeg, MB. Available online at: https://mli2.gov.mb.ca/mli_data/index.html. Acquired: June 2014. Last Update Check: June 2014.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009. Atlas of Canada 1,000,000 National Frameworks Data, Canadian Place Names (digital file). Ottawa, ON. Available online at: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan- rncan/ess-sst/85143f8a-3f55-58d1-9e02-9eb29eec1cc8.html. Acquired: October 2009. Last Update Check: June 16, 2014.

Page 5-393

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008. Hillshade. Derived from Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Centre for Topographic Information. 2000-2008. Canadian Digital Elevation Data 250k (digital files). Sherbrooke, QC. Available online at: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cded/index.html. Acquired: 2008. Last Update Check: December 2010.

United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. 2000. Vector Map Level 0, Digital Chart of the World, Railroads (digital file). Bethesda, MD. Available online at: http://geoengine.nima.mil/ftpdir/archive/vpf_data/v0noa.tar.gz. Acquired: September 2009. Last Update Check: March 21, 2014

United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. 2000. Vector Map Level 0, Digital Chart of the World, Roads (digital file). Bethesda, MD. Available online at: http://geoengine.nima.mil/ftpdir/archive/vpf_data/v0noa.tar.gz. Acquired: September 2009. Last Update Check: March 21, 2014

United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. 2000. Vector Map Level 0, Digital Chart of the World, Water Courses (digital file). Bethesda, MD. Available online at: http://geoengine.nima.mil/ftpdir/archive/vpf_data/v0noa.tar.gz. Acquired: September 2009. Last Update Check: March 21, 2014.

Page 5-394

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

ATTACHMENT A5-1

PHOTOPLATES

Page 5-395

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Plate 1 Aerial photo of Hardisty Terminal at NE 19-42-9 W4M (June 20, 2013).

Plate 2 Aerial photo of Cromer Terminal at SE 20-9-28 WPM (June 20, 2013)

Page 5-396

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Plate 3 Aerial photo of Gretna Station at SE 8-1-1 WPM (June 20, 2013).

Plate 4 Ground photo of South Saskatchewan River proposed crossing at centre line, view towards left bank SKP 518.2 (May 14, 2014).

Page 5-397

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Plate 5 Ground photo of Qu’Appelle River at proposed crossing at centre line, view upstream SKP 670.2 (May 2, 2014).

Plate 6 Aerial photo of Pipestone Creek proposed crossing at SKP 971.9 (June 26, 2013).

Page 5-398

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Plate 7 Ground photo of Souris River at proposed crossing at centre line, view upstream at SKP 1093.4 (June 2014).

Plate 8 View east through temporary marsh (Class II) wetland from west wetland margin showing Craik Station at NE 3-23-29 W2M (May 25,2014; Wetland Report ID: SK-275).

Page 5-399

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Plate 9 View southwest through seasonal marsh (Class III) wetland from wetland centre showing emergent vegetation at NE 31-40-6 W4M (May 18, 2014; Wetland Report ID: AB-049).

Plate 10 View east through alkali marsh (Class VI) wetland from west wetland margin showing open water at NW 35-34-24 W3M (May 22, 2014; Wetland Report ID: SK-047).

Page 5-400

Application Submitted to the NEB Appendix 6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 3 Replacement Program November 2014/10427

Plate 11 View east, southeast of a typical tame pasture vegetation community at NW 36-6-14 WPM (July 10, 2013).

Plate 12 View northwest of a typical native prairie vegetation community observed at SE 10-23-29 W2M (July 7, 2013).

Page 5-401