ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion Project

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion Project Applicant Name: Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. Application Date: 17 January 2007 (Preliminary Information Package: 6 September 2006) CEA Act Registration Date: 20 September 2006 National Energy Board File Numbers: CEA Act Law List Trigger: OF-Fac-Oil-E OF-Fac-Oil-E Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Number: CEA Act Determination Date: 24 May 2007

2 SCREENING SUMMARY Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. (Enbridge Westspur) has applied to the National Energy Board (NEB) for the Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion Project between the existing Alida Terminal in Saskatchewan and the existing Cromer Terminal in Manitoba. The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a 60 kilometre (km) long, millimetre (mm) outside diameter (OD) natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline within a new 20 metre wide right-of-way (RoW), to be located immediately adjacent to an existing RoW containing a mm OD NGL pipeline. The existing NGL pipeline would be converted to crude oil service upon commissioning of the new NGL pipeline. Associated infrastructure would also be built along the new NGL pipeline and at Alida and Cromer Terminals. Potential environmental issues associated with the proposed project include effects on soils, vegetation, water and air quality, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat and previously unidentified archaeological or heritage resources. Potential also exists for contamination of soil, groundwater, wetlands and/or watercourses due to accidents and malfunctions during construction and/or operations. The NEB is of the view that, with the implementation of Enbridge Westspur s environmental protection procedures and mitigation measures and the NEB s recommendations, the proposed project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS BACKGROUND RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Construction Phase of the Project Operations and Abandonment Phases of the Project DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROJECT-RELATED COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE NEB Comments from Government Departments or Agencies Comments from Aboriginal People METHODOLOGY OF THE NEB S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS Project Environment Interactions Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects Cumulative Effects Assessment Inspection and Monitoring During Construction Follow-Up Program Recommendations THE NEB S CONCLUSION NEB CONTACT i

4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEA Act COSEWIC DFO EA EC Enbridge Westspur EPP ESR Existing NGL Line Existing Oil Line FWDF ha HDD HRIA km kpag LSA m m 3 /day MB MHHC mm MOP NAWMP NEB or Board NEB Act New NGL Line NGL OD OS Project RoW RSA SARA SE SK System TC Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada environmental assessment Environment Canada Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. Environmental Protection Plan Environmental Screening Report Enbridge Westspur s existing mm OD NGL pipeline Enbridge Westspur s existing mm OD crude oil pipeline Fish and Wildlife Development Fund hectare horizontal directional drilling Heritage Resource Impact Assessment kilometre kilopascal gauge local study area metre cubic metres per day Manitoba Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation millimetre maximum operating pressure North American Waterfowl Management Plan National Energy Board National Energy Board Act Enbridge Westspur s proposed 60 km long, mm OD NGL pipeline natural gas liquids outside diameter DFO s Operational Statement for High Pressure Directional Drilling Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion Project right-of-way regional study area Species at Risk Act Saskatchewan Environment Saskatchewan Enbridge Westspur s existing oil trunkline and gathering system Transport Canada ii

5 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS The works and activities described below constitute Enbridge Pipelines (Westspur) Inc. s (Enbridge Westspur s) proposed Alida to Cromer Capacity Expansion Project (the Project). The proposed construction and operation of a 60 kilometre (km) long, millimetre (mm) outside diameter (OD) natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline (the New NGL Line) and associated infrastructure were applied for pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act), which triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) Law List Regulations, thereby requiring the preparation of this environmental screening report (ESR). Enbridge Westspur s proposal to convert a 60 km segment of its existing mm OD NGL pipeline (the Existing NGL Line) to crude oil service and increase its maximum operating pressure (MOP) was made pursuant to section 43 of the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, Although the change in service component does not trigger an environmental assessment (EA) under the CEA Act, it is integral to the Project proposal as a whole and is included in the scope of this EA. The National Energy Board (NEB or Board) is the Federal Environment Assessment Coordinator for this Project and the only identified Responsible Authority. Environment Canada (EC) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have identified themselves as Federal Authorities in possession of specialist advice. Although not formal participants in the federal EA process, both the Manitoba Environmental Assessment and Licensing Branch and Saskatchewan Environment (SE) expressed interest in receiving Project updates and reviewing EA documents. EC and SE submitted letters of comment to the Board in March The content of these letters is discussed in Section 6.1. A public hearing for the Project was held in Regina, Saskatchewan (SK) from 11 to 13 April On 8 May 2007, the NEB released a Draft ESR to those parties listed on the Hearing Order for the Project (OH ), requesting written comments on the document. Enbridge Westspur was the only party to submit comments prior to the 22 May 2007 deadline. Those comments involved nonsubstantive clarifications and have been incorporated throughout the ESR. 2.0 BACKGROUND Enbridge Westspur operates an oil trunkline and gathering system in southeastern SK (the System). The System also transports NGLs from a gas processing plant at Steelman, SK (west of Alida) to a terminal at Cromer, Manitoba (MB) via the Existing NGL Line. This line, constructed in 1956, originally transported crude oil until it was converted to transport NGLs in 1981/1982 and has not had any recorded in-service failures or leaks during its operation. The Existing NGL Line is located within a 15 metre (m) wide right-of-way (RoW). The existing RoW also contains a mm OD pipeline that moves crude oil from Steelman to the terminal at Cromer (the Existing Oil Line). 1

6 3.0 RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT The System s current configuration is not capable of delivering the recently forecasted volumes of crude oil production from fields in central and southeastern SK while the Existing NGL Line is oversized for the existing and forecasted NGL throughput. The Project would allow an increase in crude oil delivery capacity between Alida and Cromer Terminals from 25,000 cubic metres per day (m 3 /day) to a predicted 29,900 m 3 /day. NGL throughputs are not expected to increase above current levels. 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 4.1 Construction Phase of the Project The proposed construction duration is expected to last 12 to 14 weeks, commencing in July Physical Work and/or Activity Pipelines Between Alida Terminals and Cromer Terminal New NGL Line Construction of a 60 km long, mm OD NGL pipeline within a proposed new 20 m wide RoW, adjacent to the existing 15 m wide RoW; a valve would be installed on this line in the vicinity of, and near to, Pipestone Creek The existing RoW would serve as working space, as required; 7 m of additional temporary workspace would be used at some locations (i.e. water and road crossings) Some clearing is required, along with salvaging, mulching or burning of timber at landowners requests Minimal grading would take place Excavation, backfilling, cleanup and reclamation (by re-seeding and/or natural re-establishment) are required Intersects nine watercourses: o o Pipestone Creek and Jackson Creek (ephemeral) would be crossed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD); if HDD cannot be completed, isolated crossings may be used the remaining seven are ephemeral and would likely be dry at the time of crossing and an open cut method is proposed; if flowing water is present, an isolated crossing may be used (i.e. dam and pump); Some wetlands may be bored, to be determined at the time of construction Temporary vehicle crossings at watercourses would consist of rig matting or a clay/dirt approach; no vehicle crossing is necessary for Pipestone Creek Construction of a valve station on land owned by Enbridge Westspur at approximately the midpoint of the New NGL Line; the valve station would be designed to accommodate the possible future addition of a pump station Hydrotesting using water from existing ponds at Cromer Terminal; test water would be dealt with at Cromer Terminal and returned to the ponds when water quality is comparable to pre-hydrotest quality; if surface or groundwater are needed for testing, required permits would be obtained from provincial and federal authorities Project access would be via Highways #8 and #13 and existing rural municipality roads Existing NGL Line Following a successful hydrotest, this paralleling 60 km segment of the Existing NGL Line would be converted to crude oil service at an increased MOP of 7,378 kilopascal gauge (kpag) 2

7 Physical Work and/or Activity Alida Terminal Construction of an NGL booster station on the existing site Work would include the installation of an NGL booster pump and associated 5 m x 8 m x 3.5 m building, a medium crude booster pump, pigging facilities on the New and Existing NGL Lines, a flare system, piping, an emergency shutdown valve, safety control systems and the replacement of two existing pump units All pump units would be electrically powered The terminal boundaries would be expanded to accommodate new facilities, no new land rights are required Cromer Terminal Installation of piping and a pig receiver on the New NGL Line 4.2 Operations and Abandonment Phases of the Project The estimated in-service date of the Project is September/October Operations Abandonment Mainline pipe, station and terminal piping would be protected by a cathodic protection system and would be subject to the existing integrity management systems Monitoring would include weekly aerial reconnaissance of the proposed RoW and daily visits to Alida and Cromer Terminals The proposed electric pump units would not result in an increase in operational air emissions Non-continuous flaring events (involving NGLs) would continue to occur during routine maintenance. Because NGL throughput would not increase as a result of the Project and, considering the New NGL Line is of smaller size than the Existing NGL Line, an increase in operational air emissions from flaring is not likely. An increase in operational noise is expected at Alida Terminal; however, predicted noise contributions would be in compliance with the Permissible Sound Levels (day and night) of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board s Directive 038 Pursuant to the NEB Act, an application would be required for abandonment, at which time the environmental effects would be assessed by the NEB. 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT Throughout the application and this ESR, the terms Local Study Area (LSA) and Regional Study Area (RSA) are used to delineate areas of Enbridge Westspur s environmental studies. The LSA includes the defined footprint of the 60 km corridor between Alida, SK and Cromer, MB, which includes the proposed 20 m wide RoW and the existing 15 m wide RoW. This study area extends 500 m on either side of the current pipeline centre line, as well as 100 m upstream and up to 300 m downstream of each watercourse crossing site. The RSA represents a 5 km buffer around the LSA. 3

8 Land Use 94% of land along the proposed RoW is privately-owned, 4% is provincial Crown, 2% is public The Project would traverse: o o o o two Wildlife Management Zones in SK and one Game Hunting Area in MB; deer and various bird hunting seasons range from late August to the end of January the Southern Management Zone for fishing in SK and the Southern Fishing Division in MB; watercourses are open to sport fishing for approximately 11 months of the year, from early May to late March provincially registered wildlife reservation lands: Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) lands in SK and Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation (MHHC) lands in MB 22 primary and secondary highways and two railways Both Alida and Cromer Terminals are active industrial sites Socio-Economic Approximately 53 residences and 100 landowners are within 1.5 km of the proposed RoW The villages of Alida (SK), Bellegarde (SK) and Cromer (MB) lie within 3 km of the proposed RoW; Redvers, SK is the largest population centre (917 residents) near the proposed RoW and is located 6 km west of the Project Alida Terminal is currently a source of continuous operational noise and would remain as the only continuous operational noise source associated with the Project Aboriginal Peoples The White Bear First Nation is located 40 km northwest of the proposed RoW in SK, while the Oak Lake Reserve lands of the Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation is 23 km east of the proposed RoW in MB The proposed RoW would traverse the Métis Nations SK Southeast Region Zone III, the MB Métis Federation Southwest Region The proposed RoW would traverse areas which are claimed as historic traditional territories of Dakota First Nations, including Standing Buffalo Dakota First Nation, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, Birdtail Sioux First Nation, Dakota Tipi First Nation, Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation and Dakota Plains First Nation Heritage Resources Both the MB and SK Historic Resources Branches determined that the potential for the Project to impact significant heritage resources was low; a Heritage Resource Impact Assessment (HRIA) was requested for uncultivated portions of land adjacent to Gainsborough Creek and no heritage resources were identified 4

9 Soils The Project would traverse five soil series: o Oxbow soils: low sensitivity to wind erosion (3/4 of the total proposed RoW length) o Swift Creek soils: occur on strong slopes near larger drainages and are moderately sensitive to water erosion o Oxbow-saline soils: elevated salt content o Meadow soils: high sensitivity to compaction and rutting o Hamlin soils: moderately sensitive to wind erosion Vegetation The proposed RoW consists of approximately 75% cultivated land; the remaining 25% is native prairie, wetland and woodland Approximately 30 hectares (ha) of native habitat (wetlands, riparian, grassland, woodland) would be disturbed with the only alteration of natural habitat being woodland converted to grassland (approximately 1.88 ha total) Aquatic Resources and Fish/Fish Habitat Five of the watercourses to be crossed are known to contain large bodied fish; historicallyreported fish species include northern pike, white sucker, fathead minnow, Johnny darter, yellow perch, walleye, Iowa darter, pearl dace and brook stickleback; only Pipestone and Jackson Creeks yielded fish during a fish inventory In general, where crossing would occur, the ephemeral watercourses are located in pastures, grassland or cultivated lands and have flat banks and approaches that are disturbed by cattle; they do not provide overwintering habitat, have no barriers or impediments to fish migration and have low/nil sensitivity to construction activities Pipestone Creek is moderately suitable to provide spawning, rearing, and feeding habitat for forage and large bodied species and has some potential for overwintering habitat; the channel width at the proposed crossing location is approximately 40 m Applicable in-stream timing constraints extend from 1 April to 31 May in SK and from 1 April to 15 June in MB; Enbridge Westspur submits that the preferred window for construction is mid-summer or fall in order to allow time for watercourse restoration Wetlands Enbridge Westspur submits that the wetlands to be crossed, and which were disturbed by pipeline construction in 1956, appear to be functioning hydrologically and ecologically and are undistinguishable from others of the same type within the LSA that had not been crossed The proposed RoW would directly affect 179 wetlands; however, the wetlands are not considered to be unique within the LSA: o o 94 wetlands (9.1% of the proposed RoW length) are ephemeral or temporary 85 wetlands (7.3% of proposed RoW length) are seasonal, semi-permanent or permanent 5

10 Wetlands vary from temporary surface water in cultivated fields to open water sloughs with well developed emergent vegetation communities; around many wetlands are partial to complete rings of tall shrubs and bluffs of trembling aspen and balsam poplar; wetlands in heavily-grazed pastures consist of depressions that are plugged and hummocked by livestock Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Mammals in the Project area include mule and white-tailed deer, coyote, red fox, white-tailed jack rabbit, eastern cottontail, striped skunk, Richardson s ground squirrel and porcupine; six species and nine individuals (including a beaver near Pipestone Creek) were observed during field surveys Winter ranges for ungulates occur in the Project area Important bird game species in the Project area include greater white-fronted geese, snow geese, Canada geese, mallards, blue-winged teal, gray partridge, sharp-tailed grouse, and sandhill cranes; several other birds may occur during the breeding season; a total of 22 species and 50 individuals were observed during field surveys The proposed RoW would cross migratory bird habitat which is nationally significant for ducks and locally significant for burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike Pipestone Creek provides suitable habitat for various species of frogs and turtles; amphibians and reptiles observed during surveys included tiger salamander, wood frog and garter snake Within cultivated areas, wildlife habitat is typically limited to the treed fringes of wetlands, most of which do not provide regionally unique habitat for wildlife due to agricultural encroachment and lack of connectivity Listed Species (Plant and Wildlife) The Project area overlaps with the historical ranges of 11 wildlife species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which includes species protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA): piping plover, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Sprague s pipit, yellow rail, northern leopard frog, monarch butterfly, short-eared owl, McCown s longspur, red-headed woodpecker and ferruginous hawk Suitable habitat for several of the above-noted wildlife species is located in the vicinity of the Project (riparian areas around permanent wetlands/watercourses, habitat associated with Pipestone Creek, wetlands with permanent water, milkweed plants, short grass SK prairie); various species have been historically recorded in the Project area Of the above-noted species, only the monarch butterfly (caterpillars on milkweed plants) was observed during field surveys (800 m east of the proposed RoW) No COSEWIC-listed plant species were observed during field surveys and no occurrences have been documented for the Project area Provincially tracked plant species documented in the region include meadow wild barley, large flowered yellow lady s slipper, rough ox eye daisy and narrow leaved cattail (tentatively ranked in SK); only narrow leaved cattail was identified during field surveys The majority of the proposed RoW has been modified by cultivation and agricultural practices, therefore, the potential for these areas to support sensitive plant species is considered low 6

11 6.0 PROJECT-RELATED COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE NEB 6.1 Comments from Government Departments or Agencies EC recommended that Enbridge Westspur perform construction outside the 1 May to 31 July time period in areas of natural habitat where migratory birds may be nesting. EC also indicated that it is not clear how disturbance to wetlands would be mitigated or what form(s) of reclamation would be used. EC recommended rehabilitation measures in and around wetlands. SE indicated that no specific wildlife or vegetation concerns stand out. SE does have a concern with the number of creek and wetland crossings associated with the Project and understands that site specific mitigation would be developed based on weather conditions at the time of construction. SE expects that separate and more detailed applications for Aquatic Habitat Protection Permits would be required for some crossings. These topics are addressed in Section 8.2 of this ESR. 6.2 Comments from Aboriginal People Some comments received from the Standing Buffalo Dakota First Nation would come within the definition of an EA contemplated by the CEA Act. These comments pertained to the possible effect of the Project on archaeological and heritage resources. In that regard, Chief Rodger Redman of the Standing Buffalo Dakota First Nation provided evidence at the hearing that Dakota People would be concerned about any archaeological finds as the Project is located within Dakota traditional territory and earlier finds of burial sites, pottery, pipes and other objects in the general geographic area of the Project had been identified as Dakota. These topics are addressed in Section 8.2 of this ESR. 7.0 METHODOLOGY OF THE NEB S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Scope of the factors to be considered: In conducting the environmental screening, the NEB considered the factors set out in paragraphs 16(1)(a) through (d) of the CEA Act. The scope of the EA includes the life cycle of the Project within the Project area for those environmental elements listed in Section 8.1. Baseline information and sources: The analysis for this ESR is based on information from the following sources: Enbridge Westspur s application and appended Project-specific Environmental Protection Plan (EPP); responses to information requests; Enbridge Pipelines Inc. s Environmental Guidelines for Construction (December 2003); Enbridge Pipelines Inc. s Waste Management Plan (October 2004); 7

12 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. s Operations and Maintenance Procedures: Book 7 Emergency Response (December 2004); letters of comment; and evidence submitted at the public hearing. For more details on how to obtain documents, please contact the Secretary of the NEB at the address specified in Section 10.0 of this ESR. Methodology of the analysis: In assessing the environmental effects of the Project, the NEB used an issue-based approach. In its analysis within Section 8.1, the NEB identified interactions expected to occur between the proposed project activities and the surrounding environmental elements. Also included were the consideration of potential accidents and malfunctions that may occur due to the Project and any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment. In circumstances where the potential effect was uncertain, it was categorized as a potential adverse environmental effect. If there were no expected element/project interactions, then no further examination was deemed necessary. Similarly, no further examination was deemed necessary for interactions that would result in positive or neutral potential effects. Section 8.2 provides an analysis for all identified potential adverse environmental effects of the Project. Section 8.3 addresses cumulative effects and Section 8.4 describes environmental monitoring and inspections that the Company would conduct to ensure compliance with environmental commitments. Section 8.5 addresses follow-up programs and Section 8.6 lists recommendations for any subsequent regulatory approval of the Project. 8

13 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS 8.1 Project Environment Interactions Environmental Element Project Interaction? Description of Interaction (How, When, Where) Type of Potential Effect(s) Potential Adverse Environmental Effect Soil and Soil Productivity Y Excavation/backfilling (including in areas of high salinity) Construction during wet conditions Adv Admixing of soil layers Rutting and compaction of soils Soil erosion Vegetation Y Clearing of native vegetation Vehicle travel along the proposed RoW and temporary workspaces Excavation/backfilling Adv Loss of native vegetation Introduction/spreading of weeds Reduced crop productivity Bio-Physical Water Quality and Quantity Fish and Fish Habitat Y Y Accidental release of HDD mud into Pipestone and/or Jackson Creeks Use of an isolated crossing in Pipestone and/or Jackson Creeks Vehicle crossings of watercourses Possible withdrawal/discharge of hydrotest water from/to a natural source Accidental release of HDD mud into Pipestone and/or Jackson Creeks Possible withdrawal/discharge of hydrotest water from/to a natural watercourse Adv Adv Sedimentation/siltation into watercourses Damage to watercourse substrate and banks Mortality of fish Disturbance to fish habitat Wetlands Y Construction activities within/around wetlands Adv Sedimentation into wetlands Alteration of natural drainage patterns Loss of wetland vegetation Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Y Noise from construction activities Increased vehicle traffic Clearing of native vegetation Construction during the migratory bird breeding period (1 May to 31 July) Adv Disturbance to wildlife Loss of wildlife habitat (including on provincially registered wildlife reservation lands) Wildlife mortality 9

14 Project Type of Description of Interaction Environmental Element Inter- Potential (How, When, Where) action? Effect(s) Potential Adverse Environmental Effect Socio-Economic Other Species at Risk (federal) Species of Special Status (provincial, territorial, local) Air Quality Human Occupancy/ Resource Use Heritage Resources Current Traditional Land and Resource Use N Socio and Cultural Well-being N Human Health/Aesthetics N Accidents/Malfunctions Effects of the Environment on the Project U U Y N U U N See the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat element above See the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat element above Emissions from construction equipment Construction during dry conditions Clearing and construction activities Accidental spills/leaks from construction equipment Hydrotest failure of the Existing NGL Line - release of contaminated water Pipeline leak/rupture during operations Adv Adv Adv Temporary reduced local air quality Temporary increase in dust levels Disturbance to, or destruction of, previously unidentified archaeological or heritage resources Contamination of soil, groundwater, wetlands and/or watercourses Legend: Y (Yes); N (No); U (Uncertain); P (Positive); Ntl (Neutral); Adv (Adverse) 10

15 8.2 Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects Taking into account the nature of the Project, the physical works involved and the environmental setting, the NEB is of the view that the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project can be resolved using the standard design or routine mitigation measures as committed to by Enbridge Westspur in its application, Project-specific EPP, relevant environment related documents (as listed in Section 7.0) and subsequent submissions filed with the Board during the course of the EA process. The following table provides discussion on the potential adverse environmental effects that have been the subject of comments received by the NEB (see Section 6.1) or which involve Company commitments to other federal and provincial departments or agencies. Potential adverse environmental effect Mortality of fish Disturbance to fish habitat Loss of wildlife habitat on provincially registered wildlife reservation lands Disturbance to species at risk or of special status and migratory birds Mortality of species at risk or of special status and migratory birds Commitments and/or Mitigation Enbridge Westspur has committed to following DFO s Operational Statement for High Pressure Directional Drilling (the OS) at Pipestone and Jackson Creeks Enbridge Westspur confirmed that it would seek a letter of advice from DFO and would obtain the required clearances from SE, Manitoba Conservation and/or Transport Canada (TC) for undertakings at Pipestone and Jackson Creeks Enbridge Westspur has committed to complying with any recommendations specified by DFO and TC Enbridge Westspur would acquire the necessary Aquatic Habitat Protection Permits from SE prior to construction Enbridge Westspur has submitted Construction and Reclamation Plans to the respective landowners/agencies (FWDF, MHHC) associated with the registered wildlife reservation lands as part of the land acquisition process; the Company commits to undertaking any recommendations raised by those parties with respect to the Plans Overall, EC is satisfied with Enbridge Westspur s research and proposed mitigation with respect to the protection of species listed in the SARA Enbridge Westspur has committed to conducting a pre-construction survey along the full length of the proposed RoW during the spring/summer bird breeding period with a focus on raptors, listed species, nesting migratory birds and appropriate habitat Survey timing and protocol would be discussed with EC prior to implementation and the Company would work with the appropriate agencies to develop specific mitigation if conflicts with sensitive species are discovered Enbridge Westspur commits to EC s recommendation to conduct work outside of the 1 May to 31 July time period; however, the Company has submitted a mitigation strategy to EC which, if approved, may allow construction during that timeframe: o The submitted strategy highlights survey(s) timing and spatial extent, and the intent to discuss results and potential mitigation with the Canadian Wildlife Service and other government agencies, as appropriate Enbridge Westspur has committed to following SE s Activity Restriction Guidelines for sensitive species in natural habitats (2003) 11

16 Potential adverse environmental effect Sedimentation into wetlands Alteration of natural drainage patterns Loss of wetland vegetation Disturbance to, or destruction of, previously unidentified archaeological or heritage resources Commitments and/or Mitigation Enbridge Westspur has committed to consulting with EC to resolve any concerns regarding mitigation and reclamation in wetland areas Enbridge Westspur s proposed mitigation strategy in wetlands is summarized below: o Construction is planned for late summer when ephemeral and seasonal basins have either dried up or surface water has receded o General mitigation would include salvaging of organic material and segregation from subsoil, use of sediment and erosion control measures, re-contouring of wetlands to pre-construction profile (to maintain natural flow and connectivity between basins), revegetation by natural encroachment and regeneration o Enbridge Westspur does not intend to install surface structures to impede natural flow within or away from any wetland basin o Larger, more permanent wetland basins may be bored (approximately 15 in total) Site specific mitigation would be finalized prior to construction at all wetlands, taking into consideration site conditions at that time Enbridge Westspur would acquire the necessary Aquatic Habitat Protection Permits from SE prior to construction Post-construction monitoring would ensure any reclamation issues are identified within a reasonable timeframe following construction so that corrective measures can be implemented if necessary The MB Historic Resources Branch determined that the potential for the Project to impact significant heritage resources was low and did not require a HRIA for the MB segment of the Project The SK Heritage Resources Branch determined that the Project was not in conflict with previously recorded heritage resources and that, because vast portions of the Project area were already disturbed by intense agricultural land use, the potential to impact significant heritage resources was low o Uncultivated portions of land adjacent to Gainsborough Creek in SW W1M were determined to have heritage potential; an HRIA was conducted for that area and no heritage resources were identified Enbridge Westspur has indicated that, in the event that previously unidentified archaeological or heritage resources are discovered, work would cease at the location of discovery and notice would be provided to the responsible provincial authorities Should the proposed Project be approved, the NEB would expect that, if any archaeological or heritage resources are discovered during construction, Enbridge Westspur would fulfill its commitment to cease work at the location of the discovery and that work would only resume following receipt of approval from the responsible provincial authorities. Enbridge Westspur included a Project-specific EPP in its application which documents the mitigation to be implemented during the planning and construction of the Project. Since the filing of its application, the Company has proposed additional mitigation and made further commitments to consult with and adhere to recommendations of other federal and provincial government agencies with respect to the protection of the environment. The NEB is of the view that, in any Certificate that the NEB may grant, a condition be included requiring Enbridge Westspur to submit a revised Project-specific EPP for NEB approval, prior to commencing construction. This EPP should incorporate any additional proposed mitigation and 12

17 commitments made since the filing of the Project application, including those made in consultation with other government departments. A specific recommendation is included in Section 8.6. The NEB is of the view that, if Enbridge Westspur follows through with its commitments and adheres to the NEB s recommendations as set out in Section 8.6, the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project are not likely to be significant. 8.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment Cumulative effects assessment differs from conventional project-specific effects assessment by considering larger geographic study areas, longer time frames and other projects or activities in the vicinity of the applied-for Project. The key difference between determining the significance of project-specific effects and cumulative effects is the influence of other projects and activities. Thus, the incremental cumulative effects of certain projects may be deemed to be significant, when considered in the broader context of the effects of other projects and activities. The majority of the Project s potential adverse environmental effects would occur solely during the construction phase, can be effectively mitigated and are not likely to be significant. Taking this into account and, in light of the fact that at the time the application was filed there were no other known projects undergoing federal or provincial EAs within 5 km of the Project, no additional mitigation is warranted to address cumulative effects. Upon completion, the majority of the Project would be located on cultivated or previously disturbed land, would cross existing disturbance corridors (i.e. highways and roads) or lie within existing disturbance patches (i.e. Alida and Cromer Terminals). Following reclamation, lands disturbed by the Project would be returned to the habitat and land use types that existed preconstruction, with the exception of a small amount of cleared woodland being converted to grassland (approximately 1.6% of the proposed RoW s composition). Therefore, the total amount of altered local landscape as a result of the Project would not be significant. The NEB has determined that there are not likely to be any significant interactions between the environmental effects of this Project and of those identified projects or activities that have been or will be carried out. 8.4 Inspection and Monitoring During Construction Enbridge Westspur has committed to conducting monitoring during construction to ensure that the Company s proposed mitigation is implemented and also to ensure that appropriate modifications and timely decisions are made in the field in response to climatic and field conditions at the time of construction. Monitoring would involve one or more members of Enbridge Westspur s designated environmental team consisting of an Environmental Inspector/Monitor, a Safety and Environmental Representative, the Chief Construction Manager and Activity Inspectors. The Regional Land Representative and Community Relations Liaison would be available to discuss issues or concerns raised by residents. This team would engage in a collaborative decisionmaking process in the field with regard to mitigation and would also be responsible for enforcing permits, authorizations and conditions of approval. 13

18 An Environmental Inspector would be present for all sensitive phases of the Project (i.e. topsoil stripping, watercourse crossings) as well as during all phases of Project activities involving environmentally sensitive areas. 8.5 Follow-Up Program The Project and its associated activities are routine in nature. The potential adverse environmental effects of the Project are well understood based on past projects of a similar nature in a similar environment. For these reasons, the NEB is of the view that a follow-up program would not be appropriate for this Project. 8.6 Recommendations It is recommended that, in any Certificate that the NEB may grant, a condition be included requiring the applicant to carry out all of the environmental protection and mitigation measures outlined in its application and subsequent submissions. Further, it is also recommended that the following condition be included in any Certificate that the NEB may grant: Enbridge Westspur shall file with the Board for approval, at least 30 days prior to construction, an updated project specific Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), which Enbridge Westspur shall implement. The EPP shall describe all environmental protection procedures, and mitigation and monitoring commitments, as set out in Enbridge Westspur s application or as otherwise agreed to during questioning, in its related submissions or through consultation with other government agencies. Construction shall not commence until Enbridge Westspur has received approval of its EPP from the Board. 9.0 THE NEB S CONCLUSION The NEB is of the view that, with the implementation of Enbridge Westspur s environmental protection procedures and mitigation measures and the NEB s recommendations, the proposed Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. This ESR was approved by the NEB on the date specified on the cover page of this report under the heading CEA Act Determination Date NEB CONTACT Secretary National Energy Board 444 Seventh Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0X8 Phone: Facsimile: secretary@neb-one.gc.ca 14