TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, Limited Partnership Environmental Protection Plan Keystone XL Pipeline Project January 2019

APPENDIX 1I

GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 1I-1

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, Limited Partnership Environmental Protection Plan Keystone XL Pipeline Project January 2019

Page 1I-2

Keystone XL Pipeline Project Great Sandhills Reclamation Plan

Revision 1

August 2018

Prepared for:

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, Limited Partnership Calgary, Alberta

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd. Calgary, Alberta

Project Number: 123512870

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Table of Contents

1.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 3 1.3 RESEARCH FINDINGS ...... 3 1.3.1 Key Principles ...... 3 1.3.2 Pipeline Revegetation Studies – NOVA ...... 4 1.3.3 Revegetation Studies – Express Pipeline ...... 6 1.4 APPLICATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS TO RECLAMATION OF THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT ...... 8 1.5 REFERENCES ...... 9 1.5.1 Literature Cited ...... 9 1.5.2 Personal Communication ...... 10

2.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 11

3.0 CONSULTATION ...... 13

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Mean Percent Cover for Herbaceous Species at Two Sandy Soil Sites along the Express Pipeline Year 1 to Year 5 Post-Construction (1997-2001)1 ...... 8 Table 3-1 Summary of Regulatory Consultation ...... 13

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Great Sandhills Boundary ...... 2

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A DOCUMENTATION OF REGULATORY CONSULTATION A.1 Documentation of Consultation with Saskatchewan Environment ...... A.1 A.2 Documentation of Consultation with the Great Sand Hills Regional Planning Commission...... A.4 A.3 Documentation of Consultation with RM Piapot ...... A.7

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

1.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 INTRODUCTION

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, Limited Partnership’s (Keystone) Keystone XL Pipeline Project (the Project) originates in Hardisty, AB, from where it is routed south to Burstall on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border and then southeast through Saskatchewan to the U.S. border at Monchy. In Saskatchewan, the vast majority of the route will parallel the Foothills Pipeline constructed in 1981 as part of the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Foothills Prebuild. The Foothills Pipeline is a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLine Limited.

In Saskatchewan, the Project passes along the southwestern corner of the Great Sandhills (GSH) and crosses into the designated boundary of the GSH for a short distance (3.1 km) in the southern portion of Township (TWP) 13 (see Figure 1-1). The land along this section of the Project right-of-way (ROW), within the designated boundary of the GSH, (NW 31 and SW & SE 2-13-24 W3M) is very gently undulating. Land use includes native range interspersed with cultivated land and hay/tame pasture. Land in the northern portion of Township 13 (beyond the GSH boundary) is comprised of rangeland with stabilized dunes and variable topography. Sections of the pipeline in TWP 13 were paralleled n 1997, resulting in a new disturbance immediately adjacent (to the south/west) to the existing Foothills ROW.

The GSH area is recognized as being environmentally sensitive and potentially difficult to reclaim after surface disturbances, due to the arid climate and the high sand content in the soils (GSHES 2007). The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) filed as part of TransCanada Keystone’s Section 52 Application indicates (Specific Measures, Page A-48) that a “detailed Reclamation Plan” will be developed for the GSH in consultation with regulatory agencies. Saskatchewan Environment, in a Letter of Comment to the NEB, dated 27 July (SE 2009), has requested, among other items, that “the plan should include experience gained from reclamation research associated with construction of the Foothills Pipeline in the same area (e.g., vegetation trials undertaken by Dr. David Walker)”.

The following provides an overview of the GSH environmental setting and findings of revegetation research on sandy soils in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan. The majority of the information is drawn from the comprehensive pipeline revegetation study conducted by Walker (1987). Revegetation results of a more recent pipeline (the Express Pipeline) that passes through sandy soils are also included to provide information on revegetation of sandy soils using of a seed mix comprised entirely of species native to the area, as required by more current regulatory guidelines.

1

RGE. 26 RGE. 25 RGE. 24 RGE. 23 RGE. 22 RGE. 21 RGE. 20

TWP. 19

TWP. 18

TWP. 17

TWP. 16

TWP. 15

TWP. 14

TWP. 13

TWP. 12

Keystone XL Pipeline

Great Sand Hills Boundary

ES1

ES2

0 2 4 6 8 TWP. 11 Kilometres Kilometres - 1:400,000

JW-1028274-356

PREPARED BY TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.

AB PREPARED FOR SK BC Area of Interest Great Sand Hills Boundary

FIGURE NO.

USA Acknowledgements: Cimarron Engineering Ltd.; Base data supplied by the Government of Saskatchewan. -1

1 Last Modified: Feb.19, 2010 By:rmeyers KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Topography in the northern portion of TWP 13, in the area of the Walker (1987) study site, ranges from sand flats to gently to strongly rolling sand dunes, the most prominent being two transverse dunes at Keystone XL Fox Valley Section KP 31.4 and KP 32.0. The proposed Project ROW is stable with a natural cover of mixed grasses and forbs with stands of aspen poplar (Populus tremuloides) in low-lying areas and open stands of western snowberry (Symphoricarpus occidentalis) and wolf-willow (Elaeagnus commutata). An unstable dune that will not be affected by the Project, approximately 200 m from the Project ROW (at KP 31.2) consists of an active blowout bowl that supports a thin cover of vegetation dominated by lance-leaf psoralea (Psoralea lanceolata). A dense stand of chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) and Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii) stabilize the leeward slopes of the dune.

Unstable dunes that occur in the area are vegetated by northern wheatgrass (Agropyron dasystachyum), and pioneer species such as lance-leaf psoralea, sand grass (Calamovilfa longifolia), Canada wild rye grass (Elymus canadensis), Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) and sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus). As the area stabilizes over time, the vegetation shifts to those species more common in mixed prairie, such as spear grass (Stipa comata), Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), sedge (Carex eleocharis) and pasture sage (Artemisia frigida).

Soils in the area are characterized as dune sands with a medium to fine-grained texture. Soil profile development is weak (KXL ESA, Section 8: Soils).

The existing Foothills Pipeline ROW are stable. Much of the 1981 ROW and some of the 1997 ROW in the GSH remain fenced and are covered with a dense cover of grasses underlain by a thick cover of plant litter. Sections where the fence has been removed support plant cover similar to the adjacent native prairie; however, plant cover on the 1997 ROW is noticeably less abundant, given the difference in time since reclamation (13 years vs 29 years). Lance-leafed psoralea and other pioneering species are more common on the more recent ROW.

1.3 RESEARCH FINDINGS

1.3.1 Key Principles

The key to erosion control of sandy soils is the reestablishment of a dense cover of perennial plants adapted to the environmental conditions of the region (Stoesz and Brown 1957). Several conditions must first be met:

• The source of any incoming sand must be controlled or included in the area being stabilized. • The topography must be returned to the original shape or at least conform to the surrounding area. • The movement of sand must be controlled temporarily to allow time for the permanent vegetation to establish.

3

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

1.3.2 Pipeline Revegetation Studies – NOVA

A pipeline revegetation research study in the GSH area was conducted by Dr. David G. Walker, for NOVA Pipelines. The study site, located at KP 31.2 of the Fox Valley Pump Station Spread of the Project (NW 11-14-25-W3), included a number of experimental studies located within a fenced study area and the monitoring of revegetation along a 2 km section of the reclaimed ROW immediately south of the study site. Loss of topsoil was simulated by stripping the upper 15 cm of soil material. Topsoil salvage and replacement was simulated by cultivation in situ. Soil compaction resulting from pipeline construction was simulated by subjecting the soil to heavy vehicle traffic. The study began in 1980 and ended in 1987with the submission of the final report (Walker 1987).

Following is a summary of research findings of the pipeline revegetation studies in the GSH, reported by Walker (1987), supplemented with other complementary research findings, as appropriate.

1.3.2.1 Erosion Control

Topsoil Replacement

• Topsoil replacement after a surface disturbance was an important factor in the control of wind erosion in the GSH. • Soil losses were highest during the winter and early spring period when vegetation cover was lowest.

Revegetation Methods

• The Hodder Gouger and the Straw-Crimped Mulch methods were the most effective for erosion control. Because the Hodder Gouger offers limited erosion control on very exposed surfaces, Walker (1987) recommends the Straw-Crimped Mulch treatment for erosion focal points, i.e., ridgetops and slopes.

Methods tested included:

− Drill seeding a revegetation mixture with a Brillion seeder at 10 kg/ha − Wheat stubble mulch: a two-step procedure: 1) seed a wheat cover crop in spring and 2) a revegetation seed mixture the following fall. − Paper Mulch: a prepackaged rollout paper much was applied after seeding with a Brillion drill at 10 kg/ha − Straw netted mulch: straw mulch applied at 2000 kg/ha, after seeding with a Brillion drill at 10 kg/ha, anchored with an extruded propylene mesh. − Straw-crimped mulch: Revegetation seed mixture broadcast at 20 kg/ha, winter rye straw spread at 2000 kg/ha anchored into the sand with a disk, resulting in 15 cm spaced rows of straw stems protruding 5 to 20 cm out of the ground. − Hodder Gouger: The ground surface was modified with a Hodder Gouger machine, resulting in a series of shallow basins 15-20 cm deep, 75 cm wide and 150 cm long. Seed was broadcast at 15 kg/ha.

4

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

• Chemical stabilizers tested were ineffective in preventing serious soil losses. Two brands of organic seaweed extract (AquatainTM and Terra Tack IIITM) were applied at recommended and twice the recommended rate combined with either aspen wood fibre mulch or pellatized grass seed cleaning residue. A petroleum based chemical stabilizer (Dec 162TM) was applied at the recommended rate. • Transplants of grasses (those included in the seed mixture) and legumes (alfalfa, cicer milkvetch, sainfoin) planted at a density of 4/m2 were effective in establishing a rapid cover of vegetation, but the plants alone were not sufficient to control wind erosion on ground without topsoil replacement.

1.3.2.2 Plant Species Selection

• Most successful revegetation species when seeded in mixtures: alfalfa, crested wheatgrass, hard fescue, slender wheatgrass. Other grasses providing cover included: Canada bluegrass, cicer milkvetch, sainfoin, streambank wheatgrass and pubescent wheatgrass. • Most successful revegetation species in single seedings: streambank wheatgrass, Altai wild ryegrass, green needlegrass, tall wheatgrass, hard fescue, alfalfa, cicer milkvetch and pubescent wheatgrass. Other species tested included: Russian wildrye grass, big bluegrass, western wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass and prairie sandreed. • Species with good short- and long-term adaptability: Hard fescue, crested wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, Canada bluegrass, Russian wildrye and alfalfa. • Species with good short-term adaptability: streambank wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, northern wheatgrass and Altai wild ryegrass. • Competitive ability: Crested wheatgrass was the most vigourous and aggressive species of the 19 species tested, and was not recommended where invasion by native species was desired. Hard fescue, smooth brome, Canada bluegrass, and Russian wildrye grass are able to compete with most native species and may persist for a considerable time before being replaced by native species.

1.3.2.3 Revegetation

Topsoil replacement

• Topsoil replacement was found to be the single most important factor in successful revegetation.

Revegetation Methods (see Section 1.3.2.1 for methods tested)

• The Hodder Gouger and the wheat stubble mulch produced the greatest first-summer plant cover (15%). Second summer plant cover was outstanding in the Hodder Gouger (55%) treatment. However, by the end of the third summer the basins had become filled and the plant cover collapsed to a level similar to the other treatments, ranging between 50% and 60% where the topsoil was replaced and 20% to 30% where topsoil was removed. • The utilization of a seed mixture with aggressive species, such as crested wheatgrass and Hard fescue, limited the establishment of invading native species after three years.

5

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

• After six years, all treatments (with topsoil replaced) were vegetated and compared well with the native prairie. Plants were evenly distributed with a few small areas of bare ground. • Western wheatgrass establishment was significantly deterred by straw residue, possibly because of a sensitivity to a phytotoxic substance in the straw.

Native Shrub Transplants

• Three native shrub species growing wild in the area [Western snowberry (Symphoricarpus occidentalis), Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii) and wolfwillow (Elaeagnus commutata)] were grown in plastic tree-rooting containers and transplanted into several revegetation treatments. • Survival rate of container grown shrubs was low because of competition from herbaceous species and soil erosion. • The performance of surviving transplants was poor.

Effect of Vehicle Traffic

• Construction during the seasons when plants are dormant will minimize vegetation damage by compaction.

Time of Application

• The Straw-Crimped Mulch and the Hodder Gouger treatments are best applied in late fall or very early spring to optimize chances of seeding success. • Late spring and early summer seeding in conjunction with the Straw-Crimped Mulch treatment creates a serious risk of seeding failure because germination may be delayed until mid-summer when temperatures and drought stress are highest. • The Hodder Gouger treatment could be successfully used from spring to early summer without a serious risk of a seeding failure, because of superior seedbed moisture levels.

1.3.3 Revegetation Studies – Express Pipeline

The Express Pipeline, running from Hardisty, Alberta to Wyoming, passes through similar ecological regions as the Project in Canada. Although the Express Pipeline does not pass through the GSH area, it does encounter sandy soils in the Dry Mixed Grass ecological region of Alberta. Construction on the Canadian part of the line was completed in 1996. Revegetation success was monitored in year 1 (1997), 2, 3 and 5 following construction (AXYS 2003).

6

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

Seed mixes applied were designed to establish a positive successional trend towards the species composition present prior to construction. The seed mix applied in sandy soils of the Dry Mixed Grass Prairie included a mixture of the following species:

Percent by weight Streambank wheatgrass 5.4 Northern wheatgrass 5.1 Western wheatgrass 7.2 Slender wheatgrass 9.0 Prairie sand reed 12.2 Green needlegrass 7.7 Indian ricegrass 30.1 Sheep fescue 10.2 Canada bluegrass 7.5 June grass 5.6

The seed mix was drill seeded at 15 kg/ha. Where broadcast, the rate was doubled.

1.3.3.1 Vegetation Establishment

The most prominent species growing on disturbed and seeded soils on the Express Pipeline ROW the first and second year post-construction were native and non-native annuals of weedy habitat (e.g., Kochia scoparia, Salsola pestifer, Chenopodium album). Percentage cover values for these species were typically 30 to 70%. Three years post construction the prominence of annual species declined at most sites.

Similar results were recorded at sandy soil sites. Two sandy sites are considered comparable to the GSH area – one north of the South Saskatchewan River crossing and one at Onefour, Alberta. Needle and thread (Stipa comata), blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis) and northern wheatgrass (Agropyron dasystachyum) are prominent off ROW at the first site. Blue grama grass, needle and thread, sedge, Artemisis campestris, and June grass (Koeleria macrantha) are prominent at the second, more southern site. Cover at the South Saskatchewan River site remained relatively constant during the five years post- construction and approximately 2/3 of that off ROW (see Table 1-1). At Onefour, total herbaceous cover five years post-construction on and off Row was comparable (41% vs 46%). Species composition at both sites evolved over this period of time with the off ROW species becoming most prominent on ROW, replacing the native and non-native species. Needle and thread and blue grama grass (not included in the seed mix) established from the seed bank and rootstocks. By year five, needle and thread was more prominent on than off Row at the Saskatchewan River site. Blue grama was slower to reestablish. Observations indicated that where topsoil was not replaced until the following spring, needle and thread failed to establish from the seed bank (Jane Lancaster, pers. comm.).

7

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

Table 1-1 Mean Percent Cover for Herbaceous Species at Two Sandy Soil Sites along the Express Pipeline Year 1 to Year 5 Post-Construction (1997-2001)1

On RoW Off RoW Location (three-year mean) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 5 South Sask. River 91 60 59 63 68 Onefour 46 16 43 32 41 NOTE: 1 Data from Appendix E, AXYS (2003)

1.4 APPLICATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS TO RECLAMATION OF THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT

The key principles of erosion control and the majority of the research findings from the Walker (1987) study have been incorporated into the Project reclamation plan for the GSH. Discussion follows of findings that are not applied, or have been modified.

Seed Mixture Composition

Because of a change in regulatory requirements regarding the use of agronomic varieties of grasses since the research was conducted, most the species tested by Walker (1987) are no longer suitable. The seed mixture that will be used includes only species that are native to the prairie region of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Because native species typically are slower to establish than agronomic varieties, the length of time the disturbed surface is at risk to erosion will increase. Replaced topsoil will provide erosion protection in less erodible areas, e.g., sand flats and gently undulating terrain. Areas most susceptible to erosion, e.g., ridgetops and slopes, will be managed by treatment with:

• a supplementary broadcast application of the seed mix • a crimped mulch treatment, applied at approximately 2000 kg/ha.

The supplementary broadcast application will increase the chances of seedling establishment. Because the wheels of the rangeland drill (the standard method of seed mix application) tend to sink into the surface of erodible sand (vegetation cover tends to be sparse on knolls and exposed slopes) the seed (especially the smaller seeds) may be planted too deeply for the successful seed establishment.

Erosion Control

Walker (1987) found that in the study plots (located on a level sand flat) straw-crimped mulch and the Hodder Gouger provided similar erosion control capability. On exposed terrain, however, erosion control and revegetation was much superior with the straw-crimped treatment. The only sections or the ROW requiring remedial revegetation were erodible areas treated with the Hodder Gouger.

8

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

PFRA have obtained excellent revegetation with the supplementary application of native mulch to disturbed prairie rights-of-way (Rick Leslie, pers. comm.). In addition to controlling erosion, the native mulch has the potential of providing a seed source of indigenous species. Native mulch will be used where available. Native mulch will be harvested from the nearby prairie and sections of the 1981 and 1997 Foothills ROW in the GSH, which, because they remain fenced, support a heavy grass cover.

Alternate erosion control methods such as application of wet or dry tackifiers and/ or fiber mulch will also be considered.

The Nova study plot discussed above remains fenced and also supports a heavy vegetation cover. Unfortunately the vegetation in this area is not considered a suitable source of native mulch because of the presence of persistent agronomic species.

Express Pipeline

The review of results of the revegetation of sandy soils along the Express Pipeline provides an indication of the expected revegetation of the Project in the GSH area and the rate of reestablishment of the indigenous off ROW species, when the seed mixture used does not include aggressive non-native species.

The research finding of importance to the Project relates to topsoil replacement prior to the winter to facilitate natural recovery of needle and thread grass.

1.5 REFERENCES

1.5.1 Literature Cited

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2003. Environmental Monitoring Report. Prepared for Express Pipelines Ltd. 90 pp + App.

Great Sand Hills Regional Environmental Study (GSHES). 2007. http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/2007- 104GreatSandHillsEnvironmentalStudy

Saskatchewan Environment (SE). 2009. Letter (File: 2008 – 064) submitted by Randy Seguin, Director Environmental Assessment Branch, to Ms. Dutil-Berry, Secretary of the Board, National Energy Board , 27 July 2009; In reference to: Keystone XL Pipeline Project Hearing Order No. OH-1- 2009, File No. OF-Fac-Oil-T241-2009-01 01.

Stoesz, A.D. and R.L. Brown. 1957. Stabilizing Sand Dunes. In: Soil the 1958 yearbook of agriculture. The United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. pp. 321-326

Stantec. 2009a. Inspection of Foothills Right of Way on the Stacy Smith Ranch.

Stantec. 2009b. Recommendations Pertaining to Inspection of Foothills Right of Way on the Stacy Smith Ranch.

9

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Literature Review August 2018

Walker, D.G. 1987. Pipeline Revegetation Studies in the Great Sand Hills of Saskatchewan. Prepared for NOVA, AN ALBERTA CORPORATION. 119 pp +App.

1.5.2 Personal Communication

Lancaster, J. Plant botanist, field survey team, Express Pipeline, January 2010.

Leslie, R. PFRA-Bigstick Community Pasture, Land Resource Technician. Conversation, July 2009.

10

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Mitigation Measures August 2018

2.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

The Great Sand Hills are particularly sensitive to disturbance because of the sandy nature of the soils. Extra measures are required to minimize soil and vegetation disturbance, and mitigate erosion. The following construction and reclamation measures have been developed based on a review of existing literature, corporate and professional experience, and regulatory consultation. These will be implemented within the GSH, in addition to standard measures outlined in the EPP: specifically Fox Valley Section, KP 45.40 to KP 48.50,

Construction 1. Implement the Traffic Control Management Plan (Appendix 1F of the EPP). To the extent feasible, rubber-tired vehicles shall be marshalled around the area and inspection and supervisory staff shall use all-terrain vehicles (e.g., quads). 2. Construction traffic shall be restricted to the ROW, approved access trails and shoo-flies. 3. Before accessing the ROW within the Great Sand Hills Area (specified by the aforementioned KPs), all topsoil handling equipment shall be cleaned of all soil, mud and vegetation debris. 4. In erosion prone areas, the width of topsoil stripping shall be minimized to the extent feasible by only stripping the area required to accommodate the trench; the stripping area shall be widened where trench sloughing occurs and the risk of topsoil/subsoil mixing exists or where grading is required 5. Travel on the ROW by stringing trucks shall be minimized; truck travel shall be confined to the stripped area to the extent feasible and a tow cat shall be assigned to assist trucks through excessively loose sand. 6. Topsoil windrows shall be treated with a soil tackifier if the potential exists for wind erosion during construction. Reclamation 7. Reclamation shall be initiated as soon as is feasible following pipe installation and backfill, if soil and weather conditions permit. Interim measures (see Appendix A) shall be undertaken, as required, to achieve stability. 8. The disturbed portion of the slopes shall be recontoured to the preconstruction profile. 9. Seed Mix 6, specifically designed for sandy soils, shall be broadcast prior to placement of native hay mulch. 10. Native mulch may be used where available. Native mulch shall be harvested from adjacent areas, such as the Foothills Pipeline ROW, as directed by the Environmental Inspector. Sections of ROW containing hard fescue shall not be harvested for hay mulch. Alternate erosion control methods such as application of wet or dry tackifiers and/ or fiber mulch will also be considered. 11. The fence that enclosed sections of the adjacent Foothills Pipeline ROW shall be removed just prior to harvesting of the native mulch.

11

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Mitigation Measures August 2018

12. Pending landowner/occupant approval, the ROW shall be fenced in select areas (e.g. highly erosive areas) to avoid overgrazing during seed establishment. The fence shall remain in place for a minimum of 3 years or until the seeded grasses have become sufficiently well established to provide effective stabilization. Keystone will retain responsibility for determining when revegetation is sufficient and for managing removal of the fences. 13. If remedial seeding is required, seed shall be applied as early in the spring as possible, taking weather and ground conditions in to consideration, or in the late fall in order to take advantage of spring precipitation.

12

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Consultation August 2018

3.0 CONSULTATION

Regulatory consultations are outlined in Table 3-1. Consultation documentation is appended to this report (see Appendix A).

Table 3-1 Summary of Regulatory Consultation

Date Agency Comment Response January Great Sand Hills Keystone presented at the meeting of the N/A 19, 2010 Regional Planning Commission that it will be developing a Commission reclamation plan for the Great Sand Hills and that the draft plan would be reviewed with appropriate members of the Commission and to the RMs of Piapot and Bigstick1. March 8, Saskatchewan No concerns with the reclamation plan. No changes are 2010 Environment Regarding the seed mix, the native species required. selected and the relative amounts (% seed content by species) appear to be appropriate and correlate well with the grassland communities described in Thorpe (2007). April 6, RM Piapot Keystone met with administrators from the No feedback was 2010 RM of Piapot and provided a copy of the received. plan. April 13, Great Sand Hills Eleanor Bowie (Commission Secretary) No changes are 2010 Planning confirmed that a Development Permit would required. Commission not be required in the RM of Piapot for the Keystone XL Project, because the project crosses the ES2 designated area. Ms. Bowie confirmed that the RM of Piapot is not member of the Commission. The Commission is appreciative of TransCanada’s efforts to keep them aware and informed of the project. Keystone committed to continue the practice of informing external stakeholders in the project stage and in operations of Foothills, Keystone and Keystone XL pipelines. Ms Bowie forward the reclamation plan onto the members of the Commission when she received it (March 17) and no feedback has been received to date. TransCanada understands no response to mean acceptance of the plan.

1 The plan was not provided to the RM of Bigstick as it was later noted there is no ROW within that RM

13

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Consultation August 2018

Table 3-1 Summary of Regulatory Consultation

Date Agency Comment Response June 21, Saskatchewan Remove straw crimping (imported straw – Plan updated to 2018 Environment native hay from adjacent fields is acceptable) remove use of straw as a restoration measure; confirm the seed for erosion control. mix for sandy areas (different than previous), Saskatchewan Environment to send recently approved seed mix for sandy areas.

14

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Appendix A Documentation of Regulatory Consultation August 2018

Appendix A DOCUMENTATION OF REGULATORY CONSULTATION

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Appendix A Documentation of Regulatory Consultation August 2018

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Appendix A Documentation of Regulatory Consultation August 2018

A.1 DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION WITH SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT

A.1

Nicholls, Christine

From: Arsenault, Al ENV [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:26 PM To: Lorenzo Fontana; Dillabaugh, Ken ENV; Veitch, Lorne AG Cc: Nicholls, Christine Subject: RE: GSH Reclamation Plan for Review

Hi Lorenzo,

The native species selected and relative amounts (% seed content by species) appear to be appropriate and correlates well with the grassland communities described in --- Thorpe, J. 2007. Communities on the sand and sandy loam ecosites. Saskatchewan Prairie Conservation Action Plan. Saskatchewan Rangeland Ecosystems Publication #5 28 pp. fyi Al

-----Original Message----- From: Lorenzo Fontana [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:58 PM To: Arsenault, Al ENV; Dillabaugh, Ken ENV; Veitch, Lorne AG Cc: Nicholls, Christine Subject: RE: GSH Reclamation Plan for Review

Hi Al, I have attached the GSH native seed mix. Let me know what you think. We are also working through the comments on the vegetation delineation document provided by Jeff Keith and yourself, I hope to send something out later this week.

I did not also include Graham on the e-mail thinking we would send in documents through Ken D. Ken, should I also be copying Graham on all these submissions?

Thanks again for you time looking at all of these submissions.

Enjoy Lorenzo

From: Arsenault, Al ENV [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:57 AM To: Lorenzo Fontana; Dillabaugh, Ken ENV; Veitch, Lorne AG Subject: RE: GSH Reclamation Plan for Review

Hi Lorenzo.

Is there a list of the various seed mixes and application rates for the various site types proposed for the project? I'd be very interested to see them. I've reviewed the GSH reclamation plan and have no concerns other than I'd like to review the seed mixes proposed. Also, have you sent this plan to Graham Mutch for review?

Al

-----Original Message----- From: Lorenzo Fontana [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:39 PM To: Dillabaugh, Ken ENV; Arsenault, Al ENV; Veitch, Lorne AG Subject: GSH Reclamation Plan for Review 1

Hi Guys, Attached is another one of the documents that we had mentioned to Ken and Al (at our last meeting) that the NEB is requiring us to obtain documented feedback from the “appropriate regulators”. Specifically, this one is the Great Sandhills Reclamation Plan. Lorne, I don’t believe you were the meeting where we discussed our NEB conditions for the Keystone XL pipeline, the NEB is requiring us to have various plans and methodologies reviewed by the applicable regulators and then we must submit documentation of that review.

I will also be sending a copy of the plan for review to the Great Sandhills Commission as well as the applicable RMs.

We respectfully request a response regarding the reclamation plan methods by April 30, so we can be prepared to submit information to the NEB as per the condition schedule.

Thanks again for your assistance in progressing these NEB conditions. Have a great day.

Lorenzo Fontana (403-920-7765)

This electronic message and any attached documents are intended only for the named addressee(s). This communication from TransCanada may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and it must n ot be disclosed, copied, forwarded or distributed without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message. Thank you.

This electronic message and any attached documents are intended only for the named addressee(s). This communication from TransCanada may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and it must not be disclosed, copied, forwarded or distributed without authorizatio n. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message. Thank you.

2 KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Appendix A Documentation of Regulatory Consultation August 2018

A.2 DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION WITH THE GREAT SAND HILLS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

A.4

Nicholls, Christine

To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Great Sandhills Planning Commison District ( GHSPDC) update

From: Dean Burnett Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:56 PM To: Lorenzo Fontana; Ron Tourigny; Bob Oldridge; Lee Moore Cc: Randy Wight; Jared Daku; Bryce Simes; [email protected]; Nicole Aitken Subject: Great Sandhills Planning Commison District ( GHSPDC) update

Folks I spoke today with Eleanor Bowie -Secretary (GSHPDC) who confirmed that a Development Permit would not be required in the RM of Paipot for KXL based on being in ES2 designated area from the GSHPDC. She also confirmed that as advised by the RM of Piapot last week, the RM is not member of the GSHPDC and there is certainly some disconnect between the two organizations and some of their members. That being said the GSHPDC with government support indicated that industry within the boundaries of other RM jurisdictions in the GSHPDC still may be considered for recommendations from the GSHPDC especially within areas of ES1. The GSHPDC is appreciative of our efforts to keep them aware and informed of our project, which I advised her that we would continue that practice of informing our external stakeholders in the project stage and in operations of Foothills, Mainline and KXL pipelines. Eleanor has forward the reclamation plan onto the members of the Commission when she received it approx 4 weeks ago (I think that’s when Lorenzo emailed it) and no feedback has been received to date. I indicated that we would acknowledge that no response would mean acceptance of the plan however if she wanted to send another note to the members with a months time frame to reply that would be satisfactory to KXL. Regards Dean

From: Lorenzo Fontana Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:32 PM To: Dean Burnett Subject: RE: Great Sandhills Email address

Hi Dean, The Attached GSH plan has high level map, I don’t know if you need more detail or not, let me know.

Enjoy Lorenzo

From: Dean Burnett Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:20 AM To: Lorenzo Fontana Subject: RE: Great Sandhills Email address

Can you send me the description of where we go through the Sandhills and I can let you know or confirm which RM we have to deal with. Dean

From: Lorenzo Fontana Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:12 AM To: Dean Burnett Subject: RE: Great Sandhills Email address

It does help, could also tell me which RM we cross in the Sandhills and if you have a contact there, I am supposed to send it to them as well…thanks 1

From: Dean Burnett Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:23 PM To: Lorenzo Fontana Subject: Great Sandhills Email address

Lorenzo Below is the Sandhills email address below. The email will go to Eleanor Bowie who is the secretary of the Commission. Great Sand Hills Planning District Comm. [[email protected]] Hope this helps. Dean

This electronic message and any attached documents are intended only for the named addressee(s). This communication from TransCanada may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and it must not be disclosed, copied, forwarded or distributed without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message. Thank you.

2 KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT GREAT SANDHILLS RECLAMATION PLAN

Appendix A Documentation of Regulatory Consultation August 2018

A.3 DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION WITH RM PIAPOT

A.7

Nicholls, Christine

To: [email protected] Subject: FW: RM of Piapot Meeting

From: Dean Burnett Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:22 AM To: Lorenzo Fontana Subject: RE: RM of Piapot Meeting

Lorenzo I dropped of the Great Sandhills Reclamation plan to the RM of Piapot administrator Barry Dixon, who said he would forward it on the Reeve and councillors for their review and would contact me with any concerns or comments. I explain if we received no feed back it would be considered approved by them. IF I receive feedback I will forward them to you for follow up. Thanks Dean

From: Lorenzo Fontana Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:38 AM To: Dean Burnett Subject: RE: RM of Piapot Meeting

Hi Dean, I forwarded you a copy to give to the RM of Piapot, the GSH reclamation plan that Sask. Env. asked we also give to the RM. Did they have any feedback on the plan?

Enjoy Lorenzo

From: Dean Burnett Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:20 AM To: Randy Wight; Bob Oldridge; lmoore; Guy Shulhan; 'Darryl Gillis'; Ming Xiang; Lorenzo Fontana Cc: bain.mcmillan; Jared Daku; Patrick Leys; Alan King Subject: RM of Piapot Meeting

To all I met with RM of Piapot administrators Barry Dickson and Lana Bavle and Councillor Graham Markert from approx 10:30 to 12:00 pm on April 5 th /2010 We discussed the our road crossing details and pipe yard / road use for the proposed site within their jurisdiction and involvement with the Great Sandhills Planning District Commission (GSHPDC) Subject to consensuses with the remaining council members and Reeve below is a summary of those discussions 1.Crossing Details • Agree to follow the depth of cover of Foothills or to a maximum depth of 2.5m from the bottom of the bar ditch which is consistent with their policy • Agree to the same crossing angle as Foothills pipeline • OK with line pipe on undeveloped road allowance which will be open cut with exception of the following locations and subject to input from the remaining councillors - RM Boundary road between Piapot and Big Stick NW36-14-25-W3M and NE31-14-24-W3M due to potential for upgrade and use of oil and gas industry - NE30 and SW29- 13-24-W3M due to potential for upgrade and use of oil and gas industry - SE20 and SW21-13-24-W3M due to potential for upgrade and use of oil and gas industry - SW15 and NW10-13-24-W3M due to oil and gas activity - NE10 and NW11-13-24-W3M due to oil and gas activity

1 We will require a depth of cover of Foothills pipeline on the above noted locations for further discussion on the type of pipe to be used at these locations, if no restrictions to the RM when upgrading these locations heavy wall pipe will not be required for KXL. • A development permit is not required from the GSHPDC as the RM of Piapot is not a member • No written communication to the GSHPDC without advising the RM of Piapot in advance • RM advised that a development permit can be applied for the pipeline within the RM jurisdiction including the ES2 designated area of the GSHPDC under one application • RM wants a clause in the agreement that the RM engineer has the authority to decide on the methods of integrity assurance i.e. adding cover or lowering the pipeline as they feel they are exposed to the costs if having to add extra cover over a pipeline. I explained the option of installing slabs etc but they are concerned with the extra costs they may be exposed to and as per Foothills experience which caused them some grief and expense. I explained that the pipeline company would also want input to ensure the mitigate measures to ensure the integrity if required are cost effective. They agreed both parties want to ensure cost effective measures should be the final outcome but feel the pipe line company should bear most of the responsibility.

2. Pipe Yard • They advised going south of HWY 1 to south of Railway tracks and follow the main grid to the pie yard as shown on the attached map. • Secondary weight restrictions are applied throughout the year which is 75% of primary we ights on the grid road • The paved portion of the road from the TransCanada Hwy to Paipot is under the jurisdiction of the Dept of Highways • The Dept of Hwys can issue overweight permits to use the RM roads at primary weights which over rides the RM bylaws pertaining to weight restrictions. • RM administrator is agreement subject to Council approval to allow two temporary approaches at the pipe yard location, must send in application for their approval. • Adjacent yard sites to pipe yard who should be contacted to inform them of our project. - Residence to north ( little white house ) Gloria Drinkwater , she lives there part time and is Jim Wilson housekeeper ( lives at the Wilson residence) the remaining time - Harold and Betty Drinkwater live seasonal in the south house but their primary residence is in Medicine Hat.

Regards Dean

This electronic message and any attached documents are intended only for the named addressee(s). This communication from TransCanada may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and it must not be disclosed, copied, forwarded or distributed without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message. Thank you.

2