B4-2 - Response To NEB Information Response No 1 - Edmonton To Hardisty Pipeline Project - A3H2W1

Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Application for Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project

Hearing Order OH-001-2013 OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2013
Enbridge Pipelines Response to NEB IR No. 1
Page 1 of 71

Markets
1.1 Rail Movements
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Appendix 10-2, Appendix Table I: Disposition of Heavy Crude Oil
Transiting the Hardisty Hub, page 28 (PDF page 87 of 88, A3E2W6);
ii) Application, Volume I, Appendix 10-1: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Crude
Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipelines, Section 4.8, page 29 (PDF page 45 of 88, A3E2W6).
Preamble:
Reference i) illustrates the disposition of heavy crude oil transiting the Hardisty Hub.
Reference ii) discusses how rail is starting to provide a larger proportion of the crude oil
transportation market than it has held historically.
Request:
a) Please explain the underlying assumptions as to why there are no adjustments in reference
i) for rail movements:
a.1) to the U.S. East Coast from 2015 to 2022, and
a.2) to the US Gulf Coast from 2015 to 2026.
b) Alternatively, if there are adjustments for rail movements for the above, please provide
the data, in digital form, capable of computation.
c) Please explain the underlying assumptions as to why there are negative figures in the
adjustments in reference i) for rail movements:
c.1) to the U.S. East Coast from 2023 to 2030, and
c.2) to the US Gulf Coast from 2027 to 2030.
Response
a.1) and a.2): Any adjustments, for either rail or conventional heavy crude oil delivered to the
Rockies, are to account for crude oil shipments to the indicated submarkets that do not
transit Hardisty. The heavy crude oil demand in each of the indicated submarkets is total
demand, irrespective of the transportation mode by which it reached the submarket. For the
period 2015 to 2022, the Muse Crude Market Optimization Model indicates that heavy crude
oil shipments via rail to the U.S. East Coast are not required (and, thus the adjustment is
zero). That is, shipping Canadian heavy crude oil to the U.S. East Coast via rail prior to 2023
would be sub-optimal, in that the Western Canadian heavy crude oil producers are projected
to have sufficient access to markets with higher netbacks than the U.S. East Coast and,

Hearing Order OH-001-2013
OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Response to NEB IR No.1
therefore, rail shipments to the U.S. East Coast are not desirable. It is a similar situation for
the U.S. Gulf Coast, in that rail shipments are not economically attractive until 2027.

b): There are no adjustments for rail movement, and consequently, there is no data to
provide.

c.1) and c.2): Absent additional pipeline construction, rail shipments to the U.S. East Coast are
projected to begin in 2023. Because the indicated volume of Canadian heavy crude oil
demand in the submarkets includes shipments via all transportation modes, the rail
shipments must be subtracted (or a negative number added) from the total U.S. East Coast
heavy crude oil demand to determine the volume of heavy crude oil that transits Hardisty via
pipeline. Similarly, the volume of Canadian heavy crude oil that is shipped to the U.S. Gulf
Coast via rail post-2027 must also be subtracted from the total U.S. Gulf Coast demand for
Canadian heavy crude oil to estimate the volume that is transiting Hardisty via pipeline.
Transportation
1.2 Table 10-3 v. Table 11-2
Reference:
Application, Volume I, Section 10.2.3 Pipeline Capacity ex-Edmonton and ex-Hardisty, pages
10-300 to 10-301 (PDF pages 6 and 7 of 88, A3E2W6).
Preamble:
Table 10-3 of the above reference provides a summary of current capacity and destination of
pipelines exiting Edmonton and Hardisty. Enbridge, in the above reference, indicates that
TransCanadas Keystone XL pipeline is not captured in Table 11-2.
Request:
Please confirm that the table referenced should be "Table 10-3" and not "Table 11-2". If the
table referenced is, in fact, Table 10-3, please confirm that the Keystone XL pipelines
projected takeaway capacity of 111 000 m3/d is not captured in the analytical results
presented.
Response
Confirmed. The appropriate reference is Table 10-3, not 11-2. The Keystone XL capacity is
not included in Table 10-3, which summarizes current ex-Edmonton and ex-Hardisty pipeline
capacity.
1.3 Table 10-3 Footnote and Source Information
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 10.2.3, Table 10-3: Current Capacity and Destination of
Pipelines Exiting Edmonton and Hardisty, footnote 18, page 10-300 (PDF page 6 of 88,
A3E2W6);
ii) Application, Volume I, Section 10.2.3, Table 10-3: Current Capacity and Destination of
Pipelines Exiting Edmonton and Hardisty, source, page 10-301 (PDF page 7 of 88, A3E2W6).
Preamble:
Reference i) shows that footnote 18 indicates the source for Table 10-3 is "ERCB ST98."
Reference ii) indicates the source for Table 10-3 is "ERCB ST98, Enbridge."

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Request:
a) Please specify which version of ERCB ST98 was used to create Table 10-3, and also provide
the link to the applicable ERCB ST98 version.
b) Confirm if Enbridge was also used as a source to create Table 10-3, as indicated in
reference ii); if so, specify its source of information.
c) Further, specify which data in the table was derived from each of the sources.
Response a) Enbridge used the 2012 ST98 report (http://www.ercb.ca/sts/ST98/ST98-2012.pdf). Table
3.12 from the ST98 report summarizes the capacity of export pipelines.

b) Confirmed. Enbridge sourced capacity information from the document included as
Attachment 1.3 and posted on its website at the following link
http://www.enbridge.com/DeliveringEnergy/OurPipelines/LiquidsPipelines.aspx.

c) Enbridge and Alberta Clipper data was sourced from the reference in the above response
to IR 1.3 b). All other information was sourced from the reference in the above response to
IR 1.3 a).

1.4 Current Enbridge Mainline Capacity from Hardisty
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 10.2.3, Table 10-3: Current Capacity
and Destination of Pipelines Exiting Edmonton and Hardisty, pages 10-300 and 10-301 (PDF
pages 6 and 7 of 88, A3E2W6);
ii) Application, Volume 1, Appendix 10-1, Table 4.1: Major Existing Crude Oil Pipelines and
Proposals Exiting the WCSB, page 22 (PDF page 38 of 88, A3E2W6).
Preamble:
Reference i) illustrates the current Enbridge Mainline capacity from Edmonton as 296.4
thousand m/d, and Enbridge Mainline capacity from Hardisty as 296.4 thousand m/d, for a
total Enbridge Mainline capacity of 592.8 thousand m/d.
Reference ii) illustrates CAPPs data for the current total Enbridge Mainline capacity as 2,327
thousand b/d (that is, 1,081 b/d light crude plus 1,246 b/d heavy crude), which is equivalent
to approximately 369.3 thousand m/d.
Request:
Please clarify the discrepancy between the two figures and provide the underlying data and
assumptions with respect to Table 10-3, including Enbridge Mainlines capacity figures from
both Edmonton and Hardisty.
Response
The Enbridge Mainline capacity leaving Edmonton and Hardisty is the same, totalling 296.4
thousand m/d and should not be summed. As shown in Table 10-3, Application, Volume 1,
Section 10.2.3, the incremental 71.5 thousand m/d of pipeline capacity ex-Hardisty is the
Alberta Clipper pipeline. The total capacity of Alberta Clipper and the Enbridge Mainline
together is 367.9 thousand m/d (2.3 million bpd) which is approximately the same
volume identified in the CAPP report (2.327 million bpd).

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02

1.5 Notification of Commercial Third Parties
Reference:
Application, Volume I, Section 4.4 Notification of Commercial Third Parties, page 4-105 (PDF
pages 12-13 of 16, A3E2V2).
Preamble:
In the reference, Enbridge indicates that it has had discussions with industry and hosted a
commercial information session in Calgary on 3 December 2012 in order to provide all
commercial parties an opportunity to hear more about the Project and raise any questions
with Enbridge representatives.
Request:
a) Please specify whether industry or commercial third parties have expressed any concerns
in relation to the Project.
b) If concerns have been expressed, please elaborate on the nature of these concerns, and
whether these concerns have been resolved.
Response
Following the December 3rd commercial information session, Enbridge prepared and
distributed a Q&A document that addressed all of the matters raised by parties at the open
house and in subsequent discussions. The Q&A document is included as Attachment 1.5. The
matters raised that specifically deal with the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project
primarily relate to batch sizes and pipeline connectivity at Hardisty.
Enbridge did not receive any follow-up requests on the matters in the Q&A document, and no
industrial or commercial third parties have raised any other concerns specifically related to
the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project.

Engineering
1.6 Isolation Valves
Reference:
i) CSA-Z662-11 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Clause 4.4.8
ii) Application, Volume I, Chapter 7 Engineering, Table 7-3 and Appendix 7-1 (PDF pages 4, 5
and 17 of 18, A3E2W1);
iii) Application, Volume II, Section 5.1.3 Surface Water Quantity, pages 5-10, 5-11 and 5-20
(PDF pages 38, 39 and 48 of 129, A3E2X9).
Preamble:
Reference i) states that for high vapour pressure and low vapour pressure pipelines, "valves
shall be installed on both sides of major water crossings and at other locations appropriate
for the terrain in order to limit damage from accidental discharge".
Reference ii) outlines a list of sectionalizing and isolation valves that Enbridge plans to install
on the proposed pipeline route.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Reference iii) states that Battle River, located at KP 173.6, is a watercourse crossing on the
proposed pipeline route. It further indicates that Battle River flows continuously from March
to October.
The Board notes that isolation valves are not proposed for Battle River. The Board requires
further information on Enbridges proposed plan for Battle River in the event of an
uncontrolled product release.
Request:
Please confirm whether Enbridge considers Battle River to be a major watercourse crossing,
as defined in Clause 4.4.8 of CSA-Z662-11.
a) If so, provide:
a.1) the rationale for not installing isolation valves at Battle River;
a.2) details on how the requirements of CSA-Z662-11, Clause 4.4.8 will be met for Battle
River.
b) If not, please provide:
b.1) a rationale as to why Enbridge does not consider Battle River to be a major watercourse
crossing, as defined in Clause 4.4.8 of CSA-Z662-11; and
b.2) details on how Enbridge will mitigate the potential risks to the public and environment in
the event of a product release near Battle River.
Response
Enbridge does not consider the Battle River to be a major water course crossing as defined in
Clause 4.4.8 of CSA-Z662-11.
b.1) With reference to Clause 4.4.8 of CSA Z662-11, at this time Enbridge uses the description
of a major watercourse as that which has a normal high water level of 30 m or greater. The
evaluation of the Battle River did not meet this condition.
b.2) Enbridge detects releases using four primary methods, including visual surveillance,
computational pipeline monitoring, line balance and controller monitoring. Each method has
different focus and features differing technology, resources and timing. Used together, these
methods provide an overlapping and comprehensive leak detection capability. In the event of
a release near the Battle River, the pipeline would be shutdown based on emergency
response procedures, which includes the closing of remote sectionalizing valves. The nearest
sectionalizing valves are upstream ~30km and downstream ~2km at the Hardisty
Terminal. The sectionalized segment is determined using the elevation profile and definition
of high consequence areas (HCA), including water bodies such as the Battle River. Enbridge
models outflows in the event of a leak, and valve locations are selected such that flow into
the HCAs is limited below Enbridge thresholds.

1.7 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), Station Monitoring and Control, and Overpressure
Protection Systems
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 9.3 Control System Specifications, pages 9-288 and 9-289

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
(PDF pages 3-4 of 9, A3E2W5);
ii) CSA Z662-11 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Clause 4.18.1.2.
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that [t]he supervisory control and data acquisition ("SCADA") system
used by operators to monitor and control Enbridge pipelines and facilities was developed and
supported by Enbridge staff. Reference i) further indicates that [t]he computer work stations
and software used at the existing Enbridge control centre allows operators to remotely
monitor and control all elements of the applicable pipeline system, including the pipelines,
tanks, pump stations, valves and custody transfer metering. The existing Enbridge control
centre also monitors line pressures, flow rates, gas and fire detectors, and other safety
systems.
Reference ii) provides the requirements for overpressure protection systems. CSA states that,
"overpressure protection shall be installed to ensure that the maximum operating pressure is
not exceeded by more than 10% or by 35 kPa, whichever is greater."
The Board requires additional information on the SCADA system and overpressure protection
of the proposed pipeline and facilities.
Request:
Please provide:
a) details on the SCADA system that will be used for the Project, including, but not limited to:
a.1) a description of the reliability, safety and security parameters to be monitored;
a.2) locations for the remote terminals;
a.3) a description of the methods of - communications between the remote locations and the
centralized control centre;
a.4) the polling intervals between the remote locations and the centralized ; and
a.5) alarm annunciation and alarm acknowledgement;
b) a description of the redundancy strategy of the overpressure protection system for normal
operations and periodic maintenance;
c) a surge analysis from potential sources of overpressure and the prevention and control
measures to address overpressure events;
d) details on an overpressure protection strategy for a potential communication outage. The
response should include information on how the data from each valve location will be
transmitted to the SCADA system, if the communication is interrupted.
Please also indicate:d.1) whether the overpressure protection system will be automatic and
be operating continuously, without any reliance on manual intervention; and
d.2) whether the reliability of the overpressure protection system and associated
components will be assessed and maintained. If so, please provide the frequently with which
this will occur.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Response
a.1) The SCADA system monitors a number of parameters that will assist in ensuring
reliability, safety and security of the pipeline. Safety related SCADA parameters are identified
and flagged for proper management.

Examples of these parameters include:
Suction, discharge, case, mainline and station pressures.
Station viscosity, density, flow and temperature
Valve and unit status

Examples of alarms monitored through the SCADA system include:
- High, low and invalid pressure
- Fire, Gas and Emergency Shutdown
- Leak detection alarms
- Line blockage
- Communication, and power failure
- High sump and seal failures
- Operator set analog warnings
- Intrusion alarms
a.2) All pump stations and terminal locations will have SCADA Remote Terminal Units (RTUs)
along with local Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). Remote sectionalizing valve (RSV)
sites will have local PLC units and will typically communicate by radio to the nearest terminal
or pump station. This will ensure all stations, terminals and RSV sites are monitored by the
SCADA system.
a.3) A communication system will be in place, which includes redundant equipment and
alternative or backup data routes for the pipeline controller to maintain control over the
terminal, pump stations and remote valve sites.
Primary communication to terminal, and pump stations will be provided by frame relay or
asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) methods with backup provided by satellite (VSAT). Both
methods utilize standard integrity polling cycles, as well as report by exception
communication, in which the RTUs report changes in the data to the control centre.
Communication to remote valve sites is typically provided by radio connectivity to the
nearest terminal or pump station.
Stations will be equipped with a satellite data link to provide backup SCADA communications.
Additionally, stations will have a local ethernet network to provide an interface between local
computer systems and programmable logic controllers. Network connections inside buildings
will use conventional wiring. Links between buildings will use fibre optic cable

a.4) The PLC receives a continuous pressure analog value directly from each transmitter
at less than one quarter second intervals. The SCADA system is retrieving its information by
scanning the PLCs and obtaining updates on a report by exception basis. Typically, updates to
SCADA occur approximately every five seconds.
a.5) The alarm display that is a part of the SCADA system is a scrolling alarm display that can
have alarms filtered and sorted by time. The alarms are color-coded and have an audible
sound depending on the severity. Acknowledging an alarm will suppress the audible
annunciation.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Controllers access the alarm display through the alarm menu. Once an alarm display is
selected the filtering can be changed through the alarm window. Alarm windows for specific
areas can be brought up from the specific area display. As an example, station alarms can be
brought up from the station call letters.

Enbridge has different options to display alarms and events to the Controller. They are:
1. All: All alarms and events.
2. Active alarm: Alarms that have not cleared. (Mainline Only)
3. Standard alarms: Alarms for the area of the terminal they want to see alarms for. (Terminal
Only)
4. Command: Only Controller sent commands.
5. Unacknowledged: Alarms that have not yet been acknowledged.
6. Historical: All alarms and events with severity greater than 1.
7. Facility Alarms: Only the alarms for a selected Facility (i.e. Station, Manifold, etc.).
8. Event: Only the events.
9. Alarm: Only the alarms.

b) The preventative and mitigative measures currently in place for overpressure protection
include Enbridges control system and the Enbridge Control Centers policies and programs.
Enbridges primary pipeline control system, SCADA, helps to ensure normal operations across
the Enbridge pipeline system. SCADA provides automatic backup pressure protection through
a number of subroutines. The system monitors station discharge and suction pressures and
can initiate set-point reductions, unit shutdowns, or entire line shutdowns as necessary to
avoid overpressure situations. In addition to SCADAs primary functions, it runs several
analytical tools, including the generation of preconfigured or customized graphical trends and
reports that may be used in the analysis of pipeline operations and that assist in the
assessment of the accuracy of SCADA data and the volume and content of alarms. The
graphical trends and reports may also support initiatives to modify operations where
necessary.

Locally, the mainline pump station's control system is comprised of numerous
instrumentation and electrical devices that are all connected directly or indirectly to a PLC.
The PLC's main function is to control, monitor and protect the station and various electrical
equipment from overpressure, surges, abnormal operating conditions, and other anomalies
by shutting down and locking out the appropriate equipment in order to protect the
environment, facilities, and public and station personnel. Depending on the problem
encountered, the PLC will simply shut down individual mainline pumps or the PLC will isolate
individual mainline pumps by closing valves and opening up power sources or the PLC will
isolate the entire station by closing valves, shutting down all of the mainline pumps, and
opening up power sources until someone is called out to the site to investigate. This
information is monitored 24/7 by the Pipeline Controllers through the SCADA system.

c) Attachment 1.7 [Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Transient Analysis Summary Report v0.3
13-04-16] summarizes the results of a surge analysis that was completed to evaluate
potential sources of overpressure and identify any prevention and control measures
necessary to address overpressure events.
d.1) If communication between a valve location and SCADA is interrupted, the local (station)
control system, which operates continuously, will assume control and automatically take

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
measures to protect the pipeline. After a brief period of trying to establish a communications
link, the station will be automatically controlled to safe operating limits until the
communication link is re-established.
d.2) The overpressure protection system will be assessed and maintained as part of a Quality
Management System, which includes a Management of Change process to ensure the
reliability of the SCADA system components. Additionally, safety related parameters are
verified from the SCADA Human-Machine Interface to local field device on implementation
and on change.
1.8 Pump Stations and Back Up Power
Reference:
i) Onshore Pipeline Regulations,1999 (OPR-99), section 12;
ii) Application, Volume I, Section 7.1.4 Pump Facility Specifications, page 7-197 (PDF page 10
of 18, A3E2W1).
Preamble:
Reference i) provides that pump stations shall be equipped with an alternate source of power
capable of operating the stations emergency shut-down (ESD) systems.
Reference ii) does not provide any details regarding an alternate source of power for pump
stations.
The Board requires additional information about the proposed pump stations alternate
source of power for safely operating each stations ESD system.
Request:
Please provide details on how Enbridge will meet the requirements of section 12 of the OPR-
99.
Response
To comply with requirements of OPR-99, Enbridge provides alternative backup power at the
pump stations to isolate them in the event of an emergency, as stated in Enbridge
Application, Volume I, Section 7.1.4 Pump Facility Specifications, page 7-199, lines 6-8.
Enbridge confirms that all three pump stations (Edmonton South, Kingman, and Strome) will
have emergency shutdown systems in accordance with CSA Z662-11 clause 4.14.3.3. The
motor and the reversible starter for the motor operated valves (MOVs) will be backed up by
an Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) system as auxiliary/alternative supply.
For isolating the station in case of an emergency, the station suction valve (SSV) and station
discharge valve (SDV) will be closed, and bypass valve (BV) will be opened. All these valves
will be MOVs, and will have full voltage reversible starters controlling them located at the
Motor Control Center in the electrical building. All of the SSV, SDV, BV motors and their
corresponding starters will be provided with back-up power (UPS) to operate them in case of
a power outage, meeting the requirement of OPR-99 - Section 12. The diagram included as
Attachment 1.8 shows the System Configuration.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
1.9 Pipeline Integrity - In Line Inspection (ILI) Intervals and Baseline Assessment
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Chapter 9 Operations, pages 9-291 to 9-293 (PDF pages 6 to 8 of 9,
A3E2W5);
ii) Application, Volume I, Section 7.1.3 Pigging Facilities Specifications, page 7-195 (PDF page
8 of 18, A3E2W1).
Preamble:
Reference i) states that, "[t]he primary goal of Enbridges pipeline integrity program is to
prevent leaks and ruptures caused by duty-related degradation of transmission pipelines. []
The pipelines are monitored to identify defects that may occur, and remedial action to be
undertaken, in a planned approach to ensure the objectives of the integrity management
program are realized. Enbridges approach to pipeline management is based on applying
mitigation measures over the life cycle of the pipeline so that a constant base integrity level is
maintained."
Reference i) further states that, "[i]n-line inspection (ILI) is used to measure the size,
frequency and location of defects. Defects are analyzed and monitored through regular
inspections. The inspection intervals are set based on the integration and analysis of
numerous data sets."
Reference ii) indicates that pig traps will be designed to handle the latest models of in-line
inspection tools, as well as standard pigs for cleaning and pipeline integrity.
The Board requires further information on Enbridges plan for an ILI baseline assessment and
the frequency in which the inspections will be conducted.
Request:
Please provide the following:
a) Enbridges plans for conducting the ILI baseline assessment; and
b) the proposed ILI frequency for comparing the data with baseline inspection.
Response
a) Enbridge plans to conduct ILI baseline assessments within the first 2 years of pipeline
operation. The baseline inspections include:
High resolution caliper inspection
Ultrasonic crack detection inspection
Corrosion magnetic flux leakage inspection
Above-ground coating survey
b) The Project will be incorporated within the Enbridge liquids pipeline system, which is
managed through the Integrity Management System (IMS) in accordance with CSA Z662. The
core goal of the IMS is to prevent leaks or ruptures caused by corrosion, cracking, mechanical
damage and strain of the transmission pipeline system. Enbridge's current plans include a
budget for reassessment inspection within 5 years of the baseline inspections. Upon review
of the baseline inspections, subsequent reassessment inspections will be selected to ensure
that threats are identified and, if necessary, either repaired or removed before they can grow
to a size that threatens the integrity of the pipeline.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Consultation
1.10 Consultation with Landowners, Tenants and Residents
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 4.3 Implementing the Consultation Program, page 4-98 (PDF
page 5 of 16, A3E2V2);
ii) Application, Volume I, Chapter 4 Public Consultation, Tables 4-1 and 4-3 Summaries of
Comments, pages 4-102, 4-106 & 4-107 (PDF pages 9, 13 & 14 of 16, A3E2V2);
iii) Application, Volume I, Section 4.3.2 Methods of Consultation, page 4-103 (PDF page 10 of
16, A3E2V2).
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that, among others, Enbridge has identified the following stakeholders
as being interested in or potentially affected by the Project:
landowners, tenants and residents along the proposed pipeline right-of-way on whose land
pipeline construction will occur; and
adjacent landowners, tenants and residents who are within 200 m of the proposed pipeline
and within 1500 m of the proposed pump stations.
The Tables in reference ii) provide summaries of stakeholder issues and concerns that were
raised during company consultation activities.
Reference iii) indicates that Enbridges public consultation process for the Project is ongoing.
The Board notes that no additional information on consultation activities has been provided
since the Application was filed.
Request:
Please provide an updated, itemized table outlining Enbridges public consultation activities
undertaken with landowners, tenants and residents for the Project since the Application was
filed. In addition to the information already provided, the table should include:
a) the dates for each contact made;
b) who was consulted, including the method of contact (for example: telephone, personal
meeting, email, letter mail);
c) a summary of issues and concerns that were identified prior to filing the Application, the
steps Enbridge has taken or will take to address those issues and concerns; and
d) a summary of any new issues and concerns that have been raised since the Application was
filed, the steps Enbridge has taken or will take to address those issues and concerns, or
e) an explanation as to why no further action would be required to address any particular
concerns.
Response
Attachment 1.10 a) provides an update on all consultation activities that have occurred
between December 16, 2012 and April 19, 2013.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Attachment 1.10 b) provides an update regarding stakeholders who have identified issues or
concerns with the Project that have not been resolved, as well as stakeholders with whom
negotiations have not been completed. This report includes information about how any
concerns and questions raised before and during this period have been addressed, wherever
possible. Enbridge is working actively with stakeholders to resolve issues and respond to
questions as they arise.
Attachment 1.10 c) provides an update regarding stakeholders who identified issues and
concerns that have now been resolved.

1.11 Consultation with Municipal Government Officials
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II, Section 3 Consultation and Engagement, pages 3-1 and 3-2 (PDF
pages 12 and 13 of 129, A3E2X9);
ii) Application, Volume II, Section 3 Consultation and Engagement, Table 3.2, page 3-7 (PDF
page 18 of 129, A3E2X9);
iii) Application , Volume II, Section 3 Consultation and Engagement, Table 3.2, pages 3-7 to 3-
9 (PDF pages 18 to 20 of 129, A3E2X9);
iv) Application, Volume II, Section 3 Consultation and Engagement, Table 3.2, page 3-10 (PDF
page 21 of 129, A3E2X9);
v) Application, Volume I, Chapter 4 Public Consultation, page 4-107 (PDF page 14 of 16,
A3E2V2); and
vi) Application, Volume II, Section 3 Consultation and Engagement, Table 3.2, page 3-9 (PDF
page 20 of 129, A3E2X9).
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that municipal representatives were informed of the location and
construction schedule of the proposed Project. Representatives were requested to identify
any concerns and provide information that might influence the routing, construction or
operation of the proposed Project. Enbridge further states that it will arrange subsequent
meetings when warranted.
Reference ii) states that Camrose County has expressed concerns with waste disposal at work
sites and the potential capacity issues for accommodation in their community because of the
countys main August long weekend event, the "Big Valley Jamboree." The reference
indicates that mitigation measures for waste management during construction and potential
decrease in availability of rental accommodations are addressed in the Environmental and
Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA).
Reference iii) shows that Flagstaff County, Beaver County, the Municipal District (MD) of
Wainwright and Leduc County have expressed concerns regarding the spread of clubroot
disease and weeds. The reference further indicates that mitigation for these concerns will be
considered during planning.
Reference iv) indicates that Leduc County has expressed concerns with the potential difficulty
with access to Joseph Lake during construction and blocked access during construction to

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Looking Back Lake Road. The reference further indicates that mitigation for transportation of
workers, supplies and equipment is addressed in the ESA.
Reference v) states that the County of Strathcona issued Enbridge a letter on November 8,
2012 outlining its permit requirements and other expectations for pipeline routing,
pipeline/facility construction and restoration of the pipeline right-of-way.
Reference vi) states that Strathcona County has also expressed concerns regarding the
crossings at Goldbar Creek and Mill Creek.
Request:
Please provide the following information:
a) a description of the general and specific mitigation measures and their effectiveness to
address the project-specific concerns referenced above;
b) confirmation as to whether Enbridge has consulted with the municipalities regarding the
suggested mitigation measures referenced above;
b.1) if so, indicate whether the municipal officials and
representatives have any outstanding concerns;
b.2) if not, please provide an explanation.
c) a summary of the steps Enbridge has taken or will take to address any outstanding
concerns; or
d) an explanation as to why no further action would be required to address any particular
concerns.
Response
Camrose County
Waste Management
During the September 14, 2012 meeting with TERA Environmental Consultants and Camrose
County, the county commented that it was important that Enbridge manage the waste on
their work sites to the highest standards. To this end, mitigation for waste management at
work sites is presented in Section 6 General Environmental Protection Measures of the
Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) [PDF page 29 of 152, A3E2Y2], and Table 6.36,
Section 6.2.17, of the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) [PDF pages 169
of 229, A3E2Y0]. The socio-economic technical report found in Appendix 10 of the ESA [PDF
page 45 of 119, A3E3A8] states that the need for expanded waste management services is
not anticipated as a result of the construction and operation of the pipeline and that there
are no known issues with respect to the capacity of waste management facilities in the
vicinity of the Project. A copy of Enbridges Waste Management Plan (2012) will be
maintained on site during construction to provide additional guidance. Although frequently
updated (last revised in 2012), the Enbridge Waste Management Plan has been in place for
years and has proven effective on many past Enbridge projects. The Enbridge Line 4 Extension
Project involved similar pipeline construction activities along an adjacent ROW. The
mitigation and the Waste Management Plan used for Line 4 Extension Project are similar to
that proposed for the current Project and, Enbridge found that the approach was effective for

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
managing wastes.
Enbridge will contact County/MD representatives to discuss the construction schedule and
waste management plan.
Accommodations/Capacity Issues
The Big Valley Jamboree in Camrose is typically scheduled for the long weekend in August.
Project pipeline construction is anticipated to commence in August 2014, however, not all of
the crews will have mobilized in early August. Accommodation availability during
construction is addressed in Table 6.36, Section 6.2.17 of the ESA [PDF pages 167 to 174 of
229, A3E2Y0].
Enbridge will liaise with accommodation owners far in advance of pipeline construction to
secure the needed Project accommodations. If reserved accommodations are not needed,
they will be released for use by others. Based on experience with the Line 4 Extension
Project, accommodations were sufficient for the crews using this approach.
Flagstaff County, Beaver County
Clubroot Disease
The general and specific mitigation measures regarding clubroot disease and their
effectiveness are addressed in Section 6.2.2 of the ESA [PDF pages 22 to 31 of 229, A3E2Y0].
Mitigation to address clubroot disease is also presented in Section 6 General Environmental
Protection Measures of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 26 to 27 of 152, A3E2Y2] and Appendix F
- Weed and Clubroot Management Plan of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 31 to 67 of 97,
A3E2Y3]. Generally speaking, the approach to clubroot management is focused on efforts to
reduce or limit the potential spread (i.e., equipment and vehicle cleaning). Cleaning station
locations will be selected based on known sites of clubroot, using information provided by
the counties, and also on results of the weed survey scheduled for summer 2013. The
cleaning protocols are considered effective because they are based on standard best
management practices (e.g., Alberta Clubroot Management Plan) and County/MD
recommendations. In addition, these cleaning protocols were implemented during the
construction of the Enbridge Line 4 Extension Project and are considered to be effective since
to date, no concerns regarding clubroot or other crop disease have been reported along the
Line 4 Extension Project route (see Section 6.2.2 of the ESA [PDF page 31 of 229, A3E2Y0]).
Weeds
The general and specific mitigation measures to control weeds and their effectiveness are
addressed in Section 6.2.9 of the ESA [PDF pages 93 to 107 of 229, A3E2Y0]. Mitigation to
reduce or limit the potential spread of weeds is also presented Section 6 General
Environmental Protection Measures of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 23, 25 to 26 of 152,
A3E2Y2] and Appendix F - Weed and Clubroot Management Plan of the Pipeline EPP [PDF
pages 31 to 67 of 97, A3E2Y3]. A weed survey will be completed in summer 2013 (see the
response to IR 1.29) to identify weed species and density along the route.
Enbridge or its environmental consultant will contact County/MD representatives to discuss
concerns specific to their jurisdictions as part of this survey. Recommended locations for
cleaning stations will be determined based on information provided by the county and weed
survey results.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
As stated in the ESA [PDF page 103 of 229, A3E2Y0], mitigative measures outlined in the
Pipeline EPP, and Table 6.19 of the ESA, are proven and effective industry standard measures
to reduce the introduction and spread of weeds. Numerous examples of past projects that
have used similar mitigation are cited in the ESA. The previous Line 4 Extension Project post-
construction monitoring reports [A1R3S1, A1X4I9, A2L6F5, A3F1C0] show that weed issues
can be effectively addressed using the mitigative measures outlined. It is understood that in
order to control weeds, Enbridge will need to continue to be vigilant.
Leduc County
Access to Joseph Lake and Looking Back Lake Road
Enbridge will require the Contractor to prepare a Traffic Management Strategy prior to
construction as per Section 4 Preconstruction Activities of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 19
and 20 of 152, A3E2Y2]. Enbridge will also contact County/MD representatives to discuss the
strategy.
Further, it is anticipated that these road crossings will be constructed using a trenchless
technique. Consequently, although traffic may be temporarily delayed or slow, full road
closures near Joseph Lake and on Looking Back Lake Road are not anticipated. Mitigation for
transportation of workers, supplies and equipment is also addressed in Table 6.36, Section
6.2.17 of the ESA [PDF page 169 of 229, A3E2Y0]. Mitigative measures such as using multi-
passenger vehicles and directing construction personnel to obey traffic, road-use and safety
laws will be implemented during pipeline construction activities. Based on the Line 4
Extension Project experience these measures were effective.
Enbridge will contact County/MD representatives to discuss the Traffic Management Strategy
prior to construction.
Strathcona County
Prior to the launch of Enbridges participant involvement program, on August 15, 2012
Enbridge representatives met in person with County representatives to introduce the
Edmonton to Hardisty Project. A teleconference between Enbridge and County
representatives was also held on January 23, 2013 to respond to the Countys written
comments and questions provided in its letter to Enbridge dated November 8, 2012. Enbridge
is anticipating arranging a meeting in May 2013 to respond to the Countys questions raised
in their letter to Enbridge dated January 29, 2013.
The general and specific mitigation measures related to watercourse crossings and their
effectiveness are addressed in Section 6.2.3 of the ESA [PDF page 34 to 49 of 229, A3E2Y0].
Mill Creek will be crossed using a trenchless technique as the result of a Conservation
Easement which does not allow clearing and excavation in the vicinity of the creek. This is
Strathcona Countys preferred crossing technique. Mitigative measures related to trenchless
pipeline crossings of watercourses are presented in Section 13 Water Crossings of the
Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 67 to 74 of 152, A3E2Y2]. During the Line 4 Extension Project, Mill
Creek was successfully crossed using a horizontal drill technique in January 2009. No water
was present in the creek at the time of the crossing. There were two inadvertent mud
releases during the crossing of Mill Creek, but the waste material was cleaned from the dry
creek channel and bank. The releases were reported to Alberta Environment and Fisheries
and Oceans Canada on January 16, 2009. According to the Line 4 Extension Project post-

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
construction monitoring report, no unresolved issues remained after the planned mitigation
and contingency plan were implemented [PDF page 68 of 286, A1X4I9]. The Project schedule
for the Mill Creek crossing (fall/winter) is anticipated to again, be at a time when flows are
low or absent and in accordance with the relevant provincial Code of Practice and Fisheries
and Oceans Canada Operational Statement.
Goldbar Creek will be crossed using an isolated trench technique. Mitigative measures
related to trenched pipeline crossings of watercourses are presented in Section 13 Water
Crossings of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 67 to 74 of 152, A3E2Y2]. According to the Line 4
Extension Project As-Built and PCEM reports [A1R3S1, A1X4I9], Goldbar Creek was crossed
using an isolated trench technique for the Line 4 Extension Project on November 18, 2008.
Similar mitigative measures were applied at the crossing, which proved effective. According
to the Line 4 Extension Project post-construction monitoring report, no unresolved issues
remained after the mitigation was implemented [PDF page 32 of 63, A1X4I9].
The ESA, Section 6.2.3 [PDF pages 44 of 229, A3E2Y0] concluded that the results of the PCEM
for the Line 4 Extension Project demonstrate that the water crossing methods and mitigative
measures implemented were effective in avoiding or reducing the introduction of sediments
into watercourses during construction and reducing the erosion on the banks and approach
slopes to watercourses.

Aboriginal Engagement
1.12 Consultation with Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 5.2.1 Identification of Aboriginal Communities, pages 5-155
& 5-156 (PDF pages 4 & 5 of 22 A3E2V7);
ii) Application, Volume I, Section 5.2.2 Aboriginal Engagement Activities, Table 5-1, pages 5-
159 to 5-170 (PDF pages 8-19 of 22, A3E2V7);
iii) Application, Volume I, Section 5.2.3 Ongoing Aboriginal Engagement Activities, page 5-170
(PDF page 19 of 22, A3E2V7).
Preamble:
Reference i) provides a list of the Aboriginal communities that are the focus of Enbridges
primary consultation activities.
Reference ii) provides a summary of the specific consultation activities with the Aboriginal
groups.
Reference iii) states that, "Enbridge will continue to actively engage all identified Aboriginal
communities."
The Board notes that no information on consultation activities with Aboriginal groups has
been provided since the Application was filed.
Request:
Please provide updated engagement logs for the ten Aboriginal groups identified in
Enbridges primary consultation activities, including:

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
a) a summary of all activities carried out, including the dates and method of contact (for
example: telephone, personal meeting, email, letter mail);
b) a summary of all issues and concerns raised; and
c) steps that Enbridge has taken or will take to address those concerns; or
d) an explanation as to why no further action would be required to address any particular
concerns.
Response
a) A summary of Aboriginal engagement activities that includes the requested information is
provided in Attachment 1.12.

b) As noted in the application for this Project some Aboriginal groups identified general
concerns during our initial contact. However, further information has not been provided to
Enbridge during the ongoing consultation process. Enbridge has provided opportunities for
engaged Aboriginal communities to conduct a right-of-way assessment so they may provide
Enbridge with specific concerns in relation to the Project footprint. To date three Aboriginal
groups have submitted proposals to conduct a right-of-way assessment.

Enbridge has recently been made aware of the Application to participate submitted by Tsuu
Tina Nation, and will make further attempts to contact them to discuss concerns they may
have related to the Project.

c) If an Aboriginal group were to identify a concern within or very near the proposed
alignment, Enbridge would work to understand those concerns and, where applicable,
develop an appropriate mitigation strategy.

d) Enbridge has and will continue to conduct a thorough consultation program with engaged
Aboriginal communities on this Project, and is committed to working with those communities
to address concerns as they are identified.

1.13 Identification of Aboriginal Groups
Reference:
Application, Volume I, Section 5.2.1 Identification of Aboriginal Communities, pages 5-155 &
5-156 (PDF pages 4-5 of 22, A3E2V7).
Preamble:
The reference indicates that Enbridge has consulted with ten Aboriginal groups regarding the
Project.
The Board notes that three other First Nations: Saddle Lake Cree Nation, Stoney Nakoda First
Nation, and Tsuu Tina First Nation have asserted traditional territory in the Project area.
Request:
Please provide:
a) an update on the Aboriginal consultation activities that have occurred with the Saddle Lake

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Cree Nation, Stoney Nakoda First Nation, and Tsuu Tina First Nation; or
b) an explanation as to why these First Nations were not consulted with respect to the
Project.

Response

a) For a summary of Aboriginal engagement activity that includes the requested information,
please see the table in Attachment 1.12
.
b) Enbridge determined which communities to initially engage using the following criteria:
proximity of Aboriginal communities to the proposed Project area; knowledge of the
Aboriginal communities in the area, based on a long history of operating pipelines and
facilities adjacent to the proposed pipeline ROW; and Alberta Environment and Sustainable
Resources Developments (AESRD) process for consultation with First Nations in Alberta. In
December 2012, AESRD determined that no consultation was required for the acquisition of
Crown Lands. Enbridge continues to be engaged with Aboriginal communities in regards to
the Project. Should an Aboriginal group or community that has not been previously engaged
identify itself as potentially being affected by the Project, Enbridge will engage with that
Aboriginal group or community. Enbridge will engage in meaningful dialogue through
exchanging information, responding to inquiries, hearing and responding to concerns and
participating in ongoing discussion about the Project.

Socio-Economic Matters
1.14 Status of Traditional Knowledge Studies
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II, Section 5.1.14 Traditional Land and Resource Use, page 5-51 (PDF
page 79 of 129, A3E2X9);
ii) Application, Volume II, Chapter 5 Aboriginal Engagement, Table 5-1, pages 5-162, 5-163
and 5-170 (PDF pages 11, 12 & 19 of 22, A3E2V7);
iii) Application, Volume I, Chapter 5 Aboriginal Engagement, Table 5-1, page 5-162 (PDF page
11 of 22, A3E2V7).
Preamble:
Reference i) states that, "Enbridge will review and consider specific community proposals to
review areas of Crown land crossed by the proposed pipeline route where proposals are
reasonable and appropriate. Information collected will be considered and incorporated into
Project planning and mitigation. Enbridge does not believe that formal TRLU [Traditional Land
and Resource Use] studies are necessary for most of the proposed right-of-way since the
current land tenure and land use precludes, to a large extent, the practice of traditional
activities on the lands in question."
Reference ii) indicates that the Enoch Cree Nation #440 and Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation have
requested funding for a traditional use study and traditional use review, respectively.
Reference iii) indicates that the Louis Bull Tribe identified a potential archeological site in the
Hardisty area. The reference further indicates that the Samson Cree Nation advised of a
potential archeological site in the Hardisty region and of a potential culturally significant site

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
near Hardisty.
Request:
a) a full description of what information Enbridge requires the Aboriginal groups to provide in
order for proposals to be determined reasonable and appropriate;
b) a description of how Enbridge has or will use this information to determine the extent of
potential project impacts on the First Nations use of lands in the vicinity of the Project. If a
traditional use study or traditional use review identifying any impacts, or demonstrating that
there are no impacts, will not be undertaken, please provide a detailed description of the
methodology that has been or will be used, and a rationale;
c) a detailed description of the mitigation measures that Enbridge will use to address any
potential impacts identified by the Aboriginal groups; and
d) a detailed description of how Enbridge will address any outstanding issues or concerns
regarding impacts to traditional uses by potentially affected Aboriginal groups.
Response
a) If Aboriginal communities wish to undertake a right-of-way assessment Enbridge requires a
scope of work and budget that outlines the proposed activities and a breakdown of the
associated costs. Any proposal should be directly related to assessing the impacts resulting
from the Project and should take into consideration: the scope and scale of the Project;
existence of pre-disturbance in the area; and the extent that lands are available to exercise
rights and traditional uses. Enbridge specifically asks Aboriginal communities to provide a
scope of work and budget that considers the following:

a. Review to consider 100 meters on either side of the proposed right-of-way within Crown
land traversed by the alignment of the Projects;
b. Watercourse crossings;
c. Pump station sites; and,
d. Site specific areas of concern within or near the proposed alignment.

In terms of scope, 90% of all tracts are privately held and predominately agricultural land,
while approximately 9% of the pipeline is within the Edmonton Transportation Utilities
Corridor (TUC). Approximately 96.2% of the proposed pipeline will be constructed
alongside and contiguous to an existing Enbridge pipeline right-of-way and other linear
disturbances.

b) Enbridge has provided opportunities for engaged Aboriginal communities to conduct a
right-of-way assessment so they may provide Enbridge with specific concerns in relation to
the Project footprint. To date three Aboriginal groups have submitted proposals to conduct a
right-of-way assessment. If an Aboriginal group were to identify a concern within or very near
the proposed alignment, Enbridge would work to understand those concerns and, where
applicable, develop an appropriate mitigation strategy. Enbridge has recently been made
aware of the application to participate submitted by Tsuu Tina Nation, and will be further
attempting to contact them to discuss concerns they may have related to the Project.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
c) It is difficult to describe potential mitigations in isolation as they are inextricably linked to
specific concerns that are raised. In general, Enbridges mitigation measures include
avoidance of culturally sensitive areas by rerouting if feasible.

d) Enbridge hopes that through early and ongoing dialogue with Aboriginal communities we
may avoid potential impacts or minimize them through appropriate mitigation measure
including those identified above.

1.15 Heritage Resources Clearance Letter
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II, Section 5 Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, page 5-49
(PDF page 77 of 129, A3E2X9);
ii) Application, Volume II, Section 6.2.13 Heritage Resources, page 6-148 (PDF page 149 of
229, A3E2Y0).
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that Alberta Culture has determined that a targeted Historical
Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) is required for the Project.
Reference ii) indicates that Enbridge commenced a HRIA in October 2012 and further ground
reconnaissance and visual inspections are planned for the Spring of 2013. The reference
further indicates that the final report will be submitted to Alberta Culture and Enbridge will
implement any of its recommendations. The reference also states that Enbridge will provide
the Board with a copy of the Historical Resources Act clearance letter upon receipt.
Request:
The Board has not yet received a copy of the Historical Resources Act clearance letter. If a
clearance letter is not yet available, please confirm that prior to the start of construction
(including any vegetation removal or site clearing activity), Enbridge will:
a) file with the Board a copy of the clearance letter obtained from Alberta Culture; and
b) indicate how any recommendations included in the clearance letter provided by Alberta
Culture will be addressed.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Response
a) The final report for the 2012 HRIA for the Project was submitted to Alberta Culture on April
10, 2013 and is currently under regulatory review. Supplemental HRIA studies will be
conducted in spring 2013 to complete the assessment of lands not accessed in 2012 and/or
added for Project revisions, and the results will be submitted to Alberta Culture.
Historical Resources Act (HRA) clearance has not yet been granted by Alberta Culture for the
Project. Enbridge will provide the Board a copy of this clearance letter to the Board upon
receipt, prior to onset of construction activities (including vegetation/site clearing activities).
b) Should any conditions be placed on the HRA clearance issued for the Project by Alberta
Culture (i.e., in the form of a Schedule B HRA Requirements Letter or any subsequent
Schedules issued by Alberta Culture), Enbridge will meet the requirements outlined in the
letter(s) prior to onset of construction of the affected portions of the Project. Enbridge will
provide the Board with a copy of any HRA Requirements Letter issued and a summary of how
these requirements will be met.
1.16 Disturbance of Campground/Golf Course/Cemetery/Church/School
Reference:
Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Section 6, Table 6.26,
pages 6-138 & 6-139 (PDF pages 138 & 139 of 229, A3E2Y0).
Preamble:
The reference indicates that Sedgewick Lake Campground, Belvedere Golf Course, Sedgewick
Lake Cemetery, Round Hill Church and Colchester School may experience disruption and
disturbance during construction.
The reference further indicates that Enbridge has committed to liaising with these facility
stakeholders in order to minimize disturbances. Enbridge lists a number of mitigation
measures it proposes to reduce the impacts during construction.
Request:
a) Please confirm that Enbridge has consulted with the stakeholders of the facilities
referenced above.
b) Please indicate whether the stakeholders officials and representatives have any
outstanding concerns with the measures proposed by Enbridge.
Response

(a) Consultation (b) Outstanding Concerns
Sedgwick Lake
Campground
Enbridge representatives has met with
the Town of Sedgewick's Chief
Administrative Officer (CAO)Amanda
Davis on five separate occasions (from
October 2012 to February 2013). In
these meetings Enbridge
representatives reviewed Project
There are no outstanding
concerns.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
information and discussed:
environmental surveys; pipeline
routing and set backs; potential
impacts on the campsite and cemetary;
waste management and construction.
Enbridge has also notified the Town of
Sedgewick by regular mail. Enbridge
sent an open house invitation (October
2012) and notification package
(November 2012).
In February 2013, the CAO signed the
Section 87, Easement Agreement and
Temporary Workspace Agreement
documents.
Belvedere Golf
Course
Enbridge contacted the Belvedere Golf
Course in August 2012 and discussed
the Project with their representative. In
September 2012 Enbridge met with the
Belvedere Golf Course representative
and discussed pipeline routing and
construction.
Enbridge also notified the Belvedere
Golf Course by regular mail. Enbridge
2012) and a notification package
(November 2012).
Enbridge has re-routed the pipeline
around the Belvedere Golf Course and
will dis-engage this stakeholder in May
2013.
concerns.
Sedgewick Lake
Cemetery
Enbridge representatives has met with
the Town of Sedgewick's CAO, Amanda
Davis on five separate occasions (from
October 2012 to February 2013). In
these meetings Enbridge
representatives reviewed Project
information and discussed:
environmental surveys; pipeline
routing and set backs, potential
impacts on the campsite and cemetary;
waste management and construction.
Enbridge has also notified the Town of
Sedgewick by regular mail. Enbridge
concerns.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
2012) and notification package
(November 2012).
In February 2013, the CAO signed the
Section 87, Easement Agreement and
Temporary Workspace Agreement
documents.
Round Hill Church Enbridge has not consulted with Round
Hill Church as it is not a directly
affected stakeholder.

Colchester School Enbridge mailed a Project information
package (August 2012) and an open
house invitation (October 2012) to the
Elk Island Public Schools (EIPS) Regional
Division No. 14, within whose
boundaries the Colchester Elementary
School is located. In addition, Enbridge
representative Cassidy Christoffersen
met with Basil David of the EIPS
Regional Division No. 14 in person on
January 4, 2013 to discuss the
proposed Project.
To date the school administration
has not expressed any concerns
to Enbridge about the proposed
Project. It has also come to
Enbridges attention, via the
Colchester Elementary School
web site
(www.colchesterschool.ca), that
the EIPS Board of Trustees has
approved the closure of the
Colchester Elementary School
effective June 30, 2013 and that
the school will move to a new
location for the school year
commencing in September 2013.

Land
1.17 Land Acquisition
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 11.3 Land Rights Acquisition Process, Table 11-4, page 11-
525 (PDF page 4 of 33, A3E2W8);
ii) Application, Volume I, Section 11.2, page 11-524 (PDF page 3 of 33, A3E2W8).
Preamble:
Reference i) provides the schedule for the land acquisition activities.
Reference ii) states that Enbridge will obtain crossing consents from third party owners as
required, in accordance with the requirements of applicable legislation.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Request:
Please provide an update on the status of acquisition activities for all project segments,
including:
- Right-of-way and temporary work space
- Crossing consents from third party owners
- Pump stations
- Sectionalizing valve sites
The update should also include:
a) a statistical summary indicating total number of easement agreements required, executed,
and outstanding;
b) the estimated timing as to what land acquisition activities will occur and when; and
c) a summary of any unresolved issues and concerns relating to acquisition of the necessary
land rights for the Project, the steps Enbridge has taken or will take to address these issues
and concerns, or a description as to why no further action is required.
Response
Included as Attachment 1.17(a) and 1.17(b) are two tables which provide a summary of the
land acquisition to date. Attachment 1.17(a) addresses the information requested in a) and
b). It provides a summary of the land acquisition statistics including estimated timing as to
when the land acquisition activities will occur.
Attachment 1.17(b) addresses the information requested in c) providing a summary of any
unresolved issues and concerns relating to the acquisition of the necessary land rights for the
project, the steps Enbridge has taken or will take to address these issues and concerns, or a
description as to why no further action is required

1.18 Land Ownership
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Chapter 11 Lands, Table 11-3, page 11-524 (PDF page 3 of 33,
A3E2W8);
ii) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Section 1
Introduction, page 1-1 (PDF page 1 of 10, A3E2X7).
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that the pipeline traverses the Transportation Utilities Corridor (TUC)
for 9 per cent, provincial Crown land for 1 per cent and privately-owned land for 90 per cent.

Reference ii) states the proposed pipeline route traverses the TUC for 6 per cent, provincial
Crown land for 1 per cent and the remaining 93 percent of its length is privately-owned land.

Request:
Please clarify the actual percentage of land ownership along the proposed pipeline right-of-
way (ROW).

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Response
The actual percentage of land ownership along the proposed pipeline right-of-way is as
follows: fee simple lands 90%, Crown (Other) 9% and Crown (AESRD) 1% as shown in the
revised table 11-3 below. Since the original table 11.3 was filed as part of the NEB Project
application in December, the total number of tracts have changed as a result of minor re-
alignments of the pipeline. An update will be filed shortly after filing the IR responses which
will describe the re-alignments in further detail

Table 11-3 Land ownership along the proposed pipeline right-of-way

A B C D
Land Type Number of Tracts Total Project Tracts % Tracts Crossed
1 Fee Simple 337 374 90%
2 Crown (AESRD) 3 374 1%
3 Crown (Other) 34 374 9%
Total 374

1.19 Land Rights and Acquisition
Reference:
i) Application, Volume 1, Chapter 11 Lands, page 11-522 (PDF page 1 of 33, A3E2W8);
ii) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Section 4 Route
and Facility Site Selection, page 4-3 (PDF page 26 of 129, A3E2X9);
iii) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Section 1
Introduction, Figures 1.9 and 1.12, (PDF pages 1 and 4 of 17, A3E2X8).
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that approximately 174.2 km (96.2 per cent) of the pipeline will be new
ROW that is constructed alongside and contiguous to an existing Enbridge pipeline ROW and
other linear disturbances. The reference further describes that a new permanent easement,
approximately 10 to 13 m in width will be required for the Project with the total combined
width of the required permanent easement and temporary workspace being 45 m.
Reference ii) indicates that the Project would deviate from the existing Enbridge ROW in two
locations in order to avoid residences.
The sheets provided in reference iii) indicate that deviations "HC" and "HF" would create
new, non-contiguous ROWs that would effectively border the residences on the opposite side
of the existing ROW.
Request:
Please provide the following information to specifically address the length of new ROW to be
obtained from landowners and the placement of the proposed new pipeline including:
a) clarifying the placement of the proposed ROW within Enbridges existing easement(s) as
well as the new easements;

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
b) justification for the acquisition of a new ROW as it relates to the proposed Project;
c) confirmation as to whether Enbridge has discussed the potential impacts at deviations
"HC" and "HF" with the directly affected landowners:
c.1) if so, provide a summary of the landowners comments and how Enbridge plans to
address any concerns;
c.2) if not, provide a detailed explanation as to why the landowners were not consulted; and
c.3) status of Enbridges negotiations or acquisition of lands with the location(s) identified in
reference iii) above.
d) a detailed exploration of potential route alternatives to:
d.1) minimize the width of the proposed new ROW for the Project; and
d.2) avoid creating new, non-contiguous ROW at deviations "HC" and "HF".
Response
a) As described in Section 11.2 of the Application (page11-522) New permanent easement
approximately 10 to 13 metres in width will be required for the pipeline. Temporary
workspace, approximately 35 m in width (depending upon the location), will also be
required. New permanent easement and temporary workspace will be required for the
entire length (182.8 km) of the proposed pipeline. Existing easement will not be used for the
proposed pipeline due to spacing constraints within the existing easements.

b) The existing pipeline right-of-ways owned by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. did not have sufficient
space to safely install new pipelines within the existing right-of-way. The existing easements
for the existing pipelines do not include the rights for additional pipelines to be placed within
the existing easements.

c) The deviation shown on sheets HC and HF have been realigned since filing the
application to follow the existing corridor revised figures for 1.9 and 1.12, will be provided as
part of the amendment application that will be filed shortly after the IR responses. The
directly affected landowners have been consulted in regards to the route and any deviations
required for both HC and HF areas.

c.1) Included as Attachment 1.19 is a table that provides a summary of the landowner
comments and how Enbridge plans to address any concerns.

c.2) Not applicable.

c.3) For the deviations at HC all land rights have been acquired. For the deviations at HF,
Enbridge is currently in negotiation with one outstanding landowner and all other lands have
been acquired. The Table below provides a summary and status of Enbridge land
acquisition for deviations at HC and HF.

d.1) In general, the width of a right-of-way is consistent whether the Project is paralleling
pipelines or is cross country. The right-of-way width is selected for safe spacing between
pipelines, and other infrastructure. The construction footprint (right-of-way plus work space)
can be minimized by utilizing existing linear disturbances. Enbridge selected the Edmonton

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
to Hardisty route following existing pipeline corridors for almost 93% of the total length.
Deviations from the corridor were only utilized in cases where:
Landowner requested the deviation
Existing infrastructure (wellsites, building, communication towers, etc) blocking corridor
Re-alignment to cross roads at greater angles, or to avoid road intersections
Re-alignment of piping inside the Enbridge pump stations and terminals

d.2) Since filing the application in December of 2012, Enbridge has explored potential route
alternatives to avoid creating new non-contiguous right-of-way at deviations HC and HF. By
realigning the pipeline right-of-way to the north side of the existing pipeline corridors for
both HC and HF Enbridge was able to avoid creating new non-contiguous right-of-way. The
pipeline right-of-way in this specific area now follows the existing pipeline corridor. Since the
original filing, the length of the pipeline has increased by 1.8 km and some minor route
alignments have been made. These minor route alignments are a result of consultation and
land acquisition negotiations. An update will be filed shortly after filing the IR responses
which will describe the re-alignments in further detail.

1.20 Contiguous/Non-Contiguous ROW Table
Reference:
Application, Volume I, Appendix 2-2 (PDF pages 1-3 of 3, A3E2V0).
Preamble:
The reference lists contiguous and non-contiguous ROW. Specifically at KP 74+236.15 to KP
74+616.13, KP 109+231.11 to KP 109+961.20, and KP 112+804.01 to KP 113+586.16, some
fields in the table contain "????" under the heading, "Owner".
Request:
Please re-file the Contiguous and Non-Contiguous ROW table ensuring that all pertinent
information is included.
Response Included as Attachment 1.20(a) is the revised contiguous and non-contiguous right-of-way
table for the Project. Since filing the original application the route has been refined, the
attached table represents the current routing. An amendment to the NEB application will be
filed shortly after responding to the IR request to provide further detail on the realignments.
The total length of non-contiguous right-of-way is 14 km, representing 7.6% of the pipeline
right-of-way.

Environment
1.21 Width of Disturbance
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 2.2 Location, page 2-39 (PDF page 4 of 8, A3E2U8);
ii) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Section 6, page 6-2
(PDF page 2 of 229, A3E2Y0);
iii) Application - Enbridge Line 2 Replacement Project, Board Information Request No. 1.3

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
(A3F5Z2).
Preamble:
In reference i), Enbridge states that the proposed pipeline ROW would be alongside and
contiguous to an existing Enbridge pipeline ROW and other linear disturbances for
approximately 96.2 per cent of its length.
Reference ii) indicates that Enbridge is proposing to construct the Project adjacent to the
proposed Line 2 Replacement Project route for approximately 38 km.
Reference iii) is a Board Information Request to Enbridge regarding the Line 2 Replacement
Project. The Board requested Enbridge to provide cross-sectional line diagrams that indicate
where all existing (active or deactivated) and known planned pipelines and their ROWs are
located within the overall pipeline corridor.
The Board requires a clear understanding of the total width of the pipeline corridor and the
number and location of all existing pipelines in relation to the Project. The Board requires this
information to be placed on the file for this particular Project.
Request:
Please provide cross-sectional line diagrams that indicate where all existing (active or
deactivated) and known planned pipelines and their ROWs are located within the overall
pipeline corridor. The line diagrams should include labels identifying each pipeline and its
ROW, the distances between each pipe, the status of each pipe (active, deactivated or
planned), the width of each ROW, and the total width of the existing and future pipeline
corridor. Please also indicate the location of Enbridges planned temporary workspace for this
Project.
a) Please provide a line diagram, as described above, for each of the following segments
(referenced using Enbridges Environment KP system):
a.1) KPE 0.0 to KPE 15.4;
a.2) KPHA 0.0 to KPHA1.0;
a.3) KPHB 0.0 to KPHB 0.8;
a.4) KPHC 0.0 to KPHC 0.7;
a.5) KPHD 0.0 to KPHD 1.1;
a.6) KPHE 0.0 to KPHE 0.5;
a.7) KPHF 0.0 to KPHF 0.5;
a.8) KPHG 0.0 to KPHG 1.0;
a.9) KPHH 0.0 to KPHH 0.3;
a.10) KP 70 to KP 100;
a.11) KPHI 0.0 to KPHI 0.7;
a.12) KPHJ 0.0 to KPHJ 0.8;

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
a.13) KPHK 0.0 to KPHK 0.7; and
a.14) KP 120 to KP 170.
Response Cross sections are included in Attachment 1.21.

Note, pipe locations are based on the best information available and have not been verified
in the field.

1.22 Access Roads
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 2.2 Location, page 2-39 (PDF page 4 of 8, A3E2U8);
ii) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Section 7
Cumulative Effects Assessment, pages 7-4 to 7-7 (PDF pages 4 to 7 of 104, A3E2Y1);
iii) Application, Volume I, Section 8.3 Construction Logistics, page 8-258 (PDF page 2 of 29,
A3E2W4).
Preamble:
In reference i), Enbridge states that the proposed pipeline ROW would be alongside and
contiguous to an existing Enbridge pipeline ROW and other linear disturbances for
approximately 96.2 per cent of its length.
In reference ii), several proposed projects and activities in the Regional Study Area are
identified in Enbridges cumulative effects assessment.
In reference iii), Enbridge indicates that in some areas of the Project route, temporary new
access road construction may be required.
Request:
a) a description of the temporary access needs for the Project, including the approximate KP
locations;
b) a justification of why existing access is not sufficient; and
c) whether and how any new temporary access will be coordinated with other projects
(proposed by Enbridge or otherwise), as identified in reference ii).

Response
a) and b) Generally, access to the proposed construction right-of-way will be accommodated
during construction by using existing roads. Temporary access (i.e., shoo-flies) will be
required at various locations (e.g., wet areas, Class IV and V wetlands, where property
infrastructure is present) along the proposed pipeline route to move equipment or travel
around portions of the construction right-of-way. KP locations provided below reference the
Environment KPs and Project KPs as presented on the Environmental Alignment Sheets in
Appendix 2 of the ESA, Volume II of the Application [A3E2Y5 to A3E2Z2]. Note that potential
future deviations from these locations may occur. Should this happen a finalized access plan

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
will be submitted to the NEB prior to the start of construction.

Legal
Location
(W4M)
Environment
KPs
(approx.)
Project
KPs
(approx.) Justification
N 33-52-23 E 9.95 to
E 10.2
11 to 11.2 A shoo-fly approximately 250 m in length is
required to move equipment/vehicles around a
privacy berm surrounding the property.
NW 34-51-
23
E 11.2 12.2 Temporary access will be required for a length of
approximately 800 m at NW 34-51-23 W4M along
an existing private road to an existing sand pit
area. This temporary access is required to
accommodate construction from NE 33-51-
23 W4M to NW 34-51-23 W4M where the
proposed pipeline crosses Highway 14. Access to
the construction
ROW from the west side is impeded by a septic
field.
SE 35-21-22 E 14.3 15.5 A shoo-fly approximately 25 m in length is
required on the west side of Mill Creek to facilitate
the proposed trenchless crossing of the
watercourse during construction.
SW 36-51-
22
E 14.8 to
E 15.3
15.9 to 16.4 A shoo-fly approximately 450 m in length is
required to access the construction ROW and
avoid travel through a low wet area.
SE 19-51-22 16.2 20 Temporary access will be required along the west
side of the existing pipeline ROW for
approximately 200 m in order to allow equipment
and vehicles passage around a wet area.
NE 6-49-20 49.2 to 49.4 53.8 to 54.0 A shoo-fly approximately 420 m in length is
required to avoid unnecessary equipment/vehicle
travel through a Class V wetland.
NE 6-48-18 71.1 to 71.2 76.25 to
76.35
Approximately 110 m of temporary access is
required to move equipment/vehicles around
several grain silos on the property.
NW 5-48-18 71.8 to 72.0 76.9 to 77.1 A shoo-fly approximately 330 m in length is
travel through a Class IV wetland.
NE 17-47-
17
83.9 to 84.1 89.05 to
89.25
A shoo-fly approximately 1,040 m in length is
travel through a Class III wetland.
N 1-47-17 90.9 to 91.1 96.0 to 96.2 A shoo-fly approximately 260 m in length is
travel through a treed area.
NE 28-46-
16
98.0 to 98.1 103.15 to
103. 25
A shoo-fly approximately 75 m in length is
SW 18-46- 105.3 to 110.5 to A shoo-fly approximately 620 m in length is

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
15 105.5 110.7 required to avoid unnecessary equipment/vehicle
travel through a Class V fish-bearing wetland.
NE 30-45-
14
117.15 to
117.25
122.65 to
122.75
SE 21-45-14 120.9 to
121.1
126.4 to
126.6
SW 22-45-
14
121.7 to
121.9
127.2 to
127.4
W 14-45-14 123.9 to
124.2
129.4 to
129.7
SE 14-45-14 124.8 to
125.1
130.3 to
130.6
travel through a treed area.
NW 34-44-
13
133.1 to
133.5
138.6 to
139.0
NE 26-44-
13
136.2 to
136.6
141.7 to
142.1
travel through two Class IV wetlands.
SW 19-44-
12
139.5 to
139.75
145.0 to
145.25
SE 19-44-12 139.95 to
140.15
145.45 to
145.65
N 17-44-12 141.6 to
142.1
147.1 to
147.6
SE 23-43-11 159.2 to
159.65
164.7 to
165.15
NW 35-42-
10
170.9 to
171.0
176.4 to
176.5
Approximately 150 m of temporary access is
required to move equipment/vehicles around
several buildings on the property.

c) Pending regulatory approval, the first five temporary accesses/shoo-flies identified in the
table above will be installed to facilitate construction of the Line 2 Replacement Project in
2013 and will subsequently be maintained to facilitate construction of the Edmonton to
Hardisty Pipeline Project in 2014. Likewise, activities at the Edmonton Terminal (South) in
NW 32-52-23 W4M associated with the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project will share
temporary access (those on the terminal site) with the proposed Enbridge Edmonton

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Terminal (South) Expansion Project.

1.23 Fragmentation of Remnant Forest Habitats
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II, Section 2 Project Description, page 2-1 (PDF page 2 of 129, A3E2X9);
ii) Application, Volume II, Section 4 Route and Facility Site Selection, page 4-3 (PDF page 26 of
129, A3E2X9);
iii) Application, Volume II, Section 1 Introduction, Figure 1.7 (PDF page 9 of 10, A3E2X7);
iv) Application, Volume II, Section 1 Introduction, Figure 1.8 (PDF page 10 of 10, A3E2X7);
v) Application, Volume II, Section 1 Introduction, Figure 1.9 (PDF page 1 of 17, A3E2X8);
vi) Application, Volume II, Section 1 Introduction, Figure 1.10 (PDF page 2 of 17, A3E2X8);
vii) Application, Volume II, Section 1 Introduction, Figure 1.12 (PDF page 4 of 17, A3E2X8);
viii) Application, Volume II, Section 6 Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, page 6-
109 (PDF page 109 of 229, A3E2Y0);
ix) Application, Volume IIA, Appendix 9: Wildlife Report, Appendix A, pages A-1 to A-5 (PDF
pages 32 to 36 of 47, A3E3A7);
x) Application, Volume II, Section 6 Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, page 6-
114 (PDF page 114 of 229, A3E2Y0).
Preamble:
References i) and ii) indicate that the proposed route deviates from the existing ROW in 12
locations, the longest deviation being 1.1 km in length.
References iii) through vii) show that deviations "HA" (reference iii)), "HB" (reference iv)),
"HC" (reference v)), "HD" (reference vi)) and "HF" (reference vii)) cut directly through
remnant forest stands or woodlots. These deviations create new, non-contiguous ROWs that
effectively fragment portions of the woodlots.
Reference viii) indicate that these deviations occur within a Sensitive Raptor Range for bald
eagle, between KPT 0.0 to KP 19.1.
Several other species, including many species with special conservation status (for example,
bat species, raptor species, songbirds, toads) find preferred habitat in treed areas along the
pipeline route (reference ix)).
As noted in reference x), reduced habitat effectiveness can occur as a result of fragmentation,
creation of edges, or sensory disturbance (for example, noise, artificial light, proximity to
facilities and infrastructure, human activity and traffic). Habitat fragmentation has a number
of undesirable effects listed in reference x), including causing habitat to become unsuitable
for species with large territories or home ranges, altering predator-prey dynamics and
allowing for increased invasive or parasitic species abundance, and changing vegetation
communities as a result of increased light penetration at clearing edges or from changes in

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
water quality.
In reference ii), Enbridge states that these deviations from the existing ROWs are required to
accommodate a powerline ("HA" and "HB"), to avoid a residence ("HC" and "HF") and to
avoid an industrial development ("HD"); however, it is not clear whether other options for
route deviations have been explored that do not result in forest fragmentation and effective
loss of habitat.
Request:
Please provide the following information:
a) whether Enbridge has discussed with Environment Canada or Alberta Environment, the
potential for adverse effects on species with special conservation status at the deviations
"HA", "HB", "HC", "HD" and "HF" woodlot sites:
a.1) if so, please provide a summary of their comments and how Enbridge plans to address
any concerns; and
a.2) if not, please provide a detailed explanation as to why those agencies were not
consulted.
b) Please provide a detailed exploration of potential route alternatives to deviations "HA",
"HB", "HC", "HD" and "HF" that could avoid fragmenting the existing woodlots.
Response
a) Enbridge consulted with Environment Canada (Paul Gregoire, Senior Wildlife Biologist)
about the Project during a meeting on September 17, 2012. No specific routing concerns
were raised, however, Environment Canada provided general guidelines for the protection of
species with special conservation status, specifically, setbacks and timing constraints.
Relevant guidelines have been incorporated into the Project scheduling, Pipeline EPP
[A3E2Y2]) (including the Wildlife Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan in Appendix
D2 of the EPP) and the Environmental Alignment Sheets [A3E2Y5 to A3E2Z2].

TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA), on behalf of Enbridge, discussed species with special
conservation status that had the potential to be affected by the Project with Reg Russell
(Senior Wildlife Technician, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
[AESRD]) on September 20, 2012, with Dave Moore (Area Wildlife Biologist, AESRD) on
September 25, 2012 and October 12, 2012, and with Delaney Anderson (Wildlife Biologist,
AESRD), on September 27, 2012. AESRD did not identify any concerns with the Project.
The quarter-section NW 11-50-22 W4M (i.e., deviation HD) is Crown land with a Protective
Notation (PNT 030043), which is an Ungulate Habitat Protection Area. TERA discussed the
routing through NW 11-50-22 W4M with AESRD (Reg Russell on September 20, 2012 and
Dave Moore on October 12, 2012). Enbridge discussed this quarter-section with Cody
Nahirniak, Public Lands Officer and his Manager on January 14, 2013. AESRD requested that
the entire treed area within the quarter-section be avoided or horizontal directionally drilled.
ASERD had no objection to the pipeline being routed through the cultivated land portion of
the quarter-section. As a result of these discussions, Enbridge has realigned the pipeline
route since the time of application such that no clearing will take place within the PNT in NW
11-50-22 W4M. The pipeline route has been realigned to the west and the portion of the
pipeline which passes through the PNT will be constructed using a trenchless technique (i.e.,
horizontal directional drill) to avoid clearing of trees. Enbridge intends to submit a complete

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
realignment report to the National Energy Board (NEB) soon after the submission of this IR
response which outlines this, and other, route refinements.
The 13 avian species listed under Schedule 1 of Species at Risk Act or by the Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) that were identified as having the
potential to occur in the Project area are not considered woodlot or forest habitat species
and would not be affected by clearing in the woodlot. In addition, Project construction is
scheduled to start in August 2014, after the migratory restricted activity period of April 15 to
July 31.
Forest habitat in the woodlots may provide roosting habitat for little brown myotis (listed as
Endangered by COSEWIC). The little brown myotis is opportunistic in selecting roosting sites,
and may roost in trees located within fragmented agricultural landscapes or in buildings
(Fenton and Barclay 1980). There is no evidence in the scientific literature that little brown
myotis respond negatively to forest fragmentation beyond the direct effect of habitat loss,
and may even benefit from low levels of fragmentation (Crampton and Barclay 1998,
Hogberg et al. 2002, Ethier and Fahrig 2011).
b) Deviation HA was aligned away from the existing linear corridor to accommodate the
proposed AltaLink powerline right-of-way; therefore, this portion of the route will parallel the
proposed AltaLink right-of-way, and will not create a new linear disturbance.
For deviation HB, there is no appropriate route alternative being considered by Enbridge.
Hypothetically, a potential route alternative located approximately 60 m further to the west
would avoid clearing of trees. This alternative is not preferred since it would involve a greater
length of pipeline and would leave an undeveloped remnant strip of land within the
Transportation/Utilities Corridor. The applied-for routing is immediately adjacent to a
powerline right-of-way, which will also involve clearing of the same treed area.
Regarding deviation HC, a potential route alternative that would avoid or reduce fragmenting
the existing woodlot would be to move the route to the north side of the existing right-of-
way or to move the route to the west side of the right-of-way by approximately 170 m.
Enbridge has consulted with the 2 new landowners directly affected by this re-alignment, the
land has been acquired and there are no outstanding issues. An update will be filed shortly
after filing the IR responses which will describe the re-alignments in further detail.
Regarding deviation HD, as previously mentioned in IR Response 1.4a), Enbridge has
realigned the pipeline route since the time of application such that no clearing will take place
within the PNT in NW 11-50-22 W4M. The pipeline route has been realigned to the west and
the portion of the pipeline which passes through the PNT will be constructed using a
trenchless technique (i.e., horizontal directional drill) to avoid clearing of trees. An update will
be filed shortly after filing the IR responses which will describe the re-alignments in further
detail.

Regarding deviation HF, Enbridge is proposing a route alternative to the north side of the
existing corridor, where it will parallel the existing linear corridor and will reduce the amount
of clearing required. Enbridge intends to submit a complete realignment report to the
NEB soon after the submission of this IR response which outlines this route refinement.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
REFERENCES
Crampton, L.H. and R.M.R. Barclay. 1998. Selection of Roosting and Foraging Habitat by Bats
in Different-Aged Aspen Mixedwood Stands. Conservation Biology 12(6):1347-1358.
Ethier, K. and L. Fahrig. 2011. Positive effects of forest fragmentation, independent of forest
amount, on bat abundance in eastern Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecology 26(6):865-876.
Fenton, M.B. and R.M.R. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian Species 142:1-8.
Hogberg, L.K., Patriquin, K.J., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2002. Use by bats of patches of residual
trees in logged areas of the boreal forest. The American Midland Naturalist 148(2):282-288.

1.24 Construction Timing and Clearing Activities
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Section 6.2.10
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, page 6-109 (PDF page 109 of 229, A3E2Y0);
ii) Application, Volume II, Section 6 Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, page 6-
110 (PDF page 110 of 229, A3E2Y0).
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that the proposed pipeline route traverses provincial Protective
Notation (PNT) 030043 (Ungulate Habitat Protection Area) located at NW 11-50-22 W4M. It
also indicates that this PNT has a 1 January to 31 March timing restriction, which may be
relaxed during mild winters.
In addition, reference ii) notes that in Strathcona County High and Medium Priority
Environmental Management Areas (PEMAs) and Priority Wildlife Habitat Units (WHUs), tree
clearing must be completed before 15 April or after 31 July and that for all tree clearing
commencing after 15 February, the area must be inspected for nesting owls.
Request:
a) a description of the activities included in the 1 January to 31 March PNT timing restriction;
b) a description of the activities or work Enbridge plans to conduct within the PNT, if any,
during the period between 1 January to 31 March;
c) a clarification of whether Enbridge will comply with Strathcona Countys PEMA and WHU
directives for tree clearing; and
d) correspondence, if any, received by Enbridge from Strathcona County as well as from
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development regarding the proposed
construction activities and timing restrictions.
Response
a) The January 1 to March 31 timing restriction pertains to all clearing and construction
activities in the ungulate habitat protection area. This timing restriction may be relaxed
during mild winters as per the advice of Moore, D. Area Wildlife Biologist. Alberta

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Vermilion, Alberta.

b) Enbridge does not plan to conduct any activities within the PNT between January 1 and
March 31. Should construction be delayed and access to NW 11-50-22 W4M is necessary
during this period, Enbridge will consult with AESRD to discuss available options prior to
entering the property.

Furthermore, the pipeline route has been realigned since the time of application such that no
clearing will take place within the PNT in NW 11-50-22 W4M. The pipeline route has been
realigned to the west and the portion of the pipeline which passes through the PNT will be
constructed using a trenchless technique (i.e., horizontal directional drill) to avoid clearing of
trees. An update will be filed shortly after filing the IR responses which will describe the re-
alignments in further detail.
c) The anticipated start date of construction is August 15, 2014 and, therefore, Enbridge will
not conduct any clearing within Strathcona County between April 15 and July 31. Should
construction be delayed such that clearing is necessary between February 15 and April 15,
2014, Enbridge will conduct wildlife sweeps for nesting owls within Strathcona County.

d) Enbridge has not received correspondence from either Strathcona County or AESRD
regarding timing restrictions.

1.25 Timing of Topsoil Salvage and Open Trench
Reference:
i) Application, Volume I, Section 8.6 Pipeline Construction, pages 8-259 to 8-260 (PDF pages
3-4 of 29, A3E2W4);
ii) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Section 6, Table
6.4, pages 6-16 to 6-17 (PDF pages 16-17 of 299, A3E2Y0);
iii) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Appendix 1A
Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan, page 44 (PDF page 50 of 152, A3E2Y2).
Preamble:
Reference i) explains that in arable land, topsoil will be removed for the work area and
stockpiled separately at the edge of the ROW. It also states that the length of pipe stringing
and the open trench would be minimized to the extent practical without affecting
construction productivity. Final cleanup, including replacing topsoil, would be completed
immediately after machine cleanup.
Reference ii) provides additional detail on topsoil salvage, including pre-salvage of topsoil
prior to any construction in frozen conditions (that is, before 31 October.
Enbridge again commits in references ii) and iii) to limiting the length of open trench and
reducing the time the trench would be left open to lessen the amount of trench sloughing,
frost penetration and interference with wildlife, landowners and livestock.
Reference iii) also adds that, where warranted and as determined by the Environmental
Inspector, the length of open trench may vary based on an evaluation of the stability of the
trench, weather forecast (that is, the likelihood of precipitation), safety issues, potential for

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
disruption of land use and risk to wildlife/livestock.
Reference ii) notes that final cleanup along the portions of the ROW constructed during non-
frozen soil conditions would be conducted as quickly as practical after backfilling and prior to
freeze-up.
It is not clear from these commitments how long Enbridge anticipates that the topsoil along
the remainder of the ROW will remain exposed, and how long the trench will be open in any
given location.
Request:
a) a breakdown of the total estimated times between topsoil salvage, trenching, lowering-in,
backfilling, topsoil replacement and final reclamation, and whether there would be any
difference in this timing between land use types and between construction in frozen versus
non-frozen conditions;
b) the assumptions for these estimates;
c) situations or conditions that would change these estimates and by how much; and
d) applicable contingency plans should topsoil remain exposed or the trench remain open for
longer than the estimated period.
Response
Based on preliminary construction scheduling that has been developed for the Line 2
Replacement Project, and using similar methodologies and timing for Edmonton to Hardisty
Pipeline Project, construction sequencing would be as follows:
Topsoil Salvage: Aug 2013 Sep 2013 (As part of Line 2 Replacement Project
Construction)
Line 2 Replacement Project Construction : Sep 2013 Dec 2013
Topsoil is not replaced at the end of construction for the Line 2 Replacement
Project
Trenching of the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project: Sep 2014 Nov 2014
Lowering-in the of the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project: Sep 2014 Nov
2014
Backfilling of the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project: Sep 2014 Nov 2014
Topsoil Replacement: Sep 2014 Nov 2014
Final Reclamation (warranty work): Sep 2015 Oct 2015
These dates are based on a typical construction spread build-up with the intention of starting
work in non-frozen conditions. The spread activities work as a train, with each subsequent
activity following close behind the leading activity. It is not typical for long sections of trench
to be left open for longer than two days, however there are areas, such as areas for tie-ins,
that do get left open for longer periods of time.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Different land use types would not typically change the above construction sequencing;
however individual landowners may require special soil handling conditions on their
particular tracts.
For the most part, construction is a linear process. The above sequencing would be
maintained, even if construction start is delayed. For example, if the Edmonton to Hardisty
construction starts 2 months later than planned, the schedule for the above activities
would be adjusted the same 2 months. If construction were to start in frozen conditions, the
above sequencing would be maintained, however different equipment would be required for
soil handling. The constraint that would start to affect the above sequencing is if
construction were delayed so long that the end of the train (ie lowering-in, backfilling, etc)
were to slip into spring break-up conditions. Working in break-up is avoided because of the
high potential of soil mixing due to rutting in mud conditions. Work would re-commence
after break-up when the ground conditions are suitable for heavy equipment.
d) Enbridge will endeavor to keep a tight construction spread, with trenching occurring just
prior to pipeline lowering and followed immediately by backfilling of the trench, although
there may be isolated scenarios in which the trench is open for a few days to accommodate
for crossing tie-in holes. Enbridge will ensure the entire trench is backfilled as part of rough
clean-up activities upon completion of pipeline installation. Mitigative measures pertaining to
the duration of open trench during construction are presented in Section 9.0 Stringing,
Welding, Trenching and Lowering-In of the Pipeline EPP[PDF pages 49 to 52, A3E2Y2].
Topsoil will remain windrowed along the construction right-of-way as discussed within the
ESA. Mitigative measures pertaining to potential erosion of topsoil are presented in Section
8.0 Topsoil Salvage and Grading of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 42 to 48, A3E2Y2], Section
12.0 Clean-Up and Reclamation of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 60 to 66, A3E2Y2], Appendix
D11 Soil Erosion Contingency Measures of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 111 and 112,
A3E2Y2] and Appendix D19 Tackification Measures of the Pipeline EPP [PDF pages 125 and
126, A3E2Y2].

1.26 Topsoil Protection
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Section 6 page 6-2
(PDF page 2 of 229, A3E2Y0);
ii) Application, Volume II, Section 7 Cumulative Effects Assessment, page 7-18 (PDF page 18 of
104, A3E2Y1).
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that for the 38 km portion of the pipeline that parallels the proposed
Line 2 replacement project, Enbridge proposes to leave the topsoil salvaged and windrowed
for the period between Line 2 construction (August 2013) and the start of the Project in
August 2014.
In 2014, the topsoil piles will be set back to the edge of the Edmonton to Hardisty ROW and
the additional 10 m of topsoil salvage and grading will be completed.
Reference i) adds that topsoil replacement and reclamation of the

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
combined 55 m footprint will be conducted together upon the completion of the Project.
Reference ii) states that construction of the water body crossings for the Line 2 Replacement
project will take place in the late summer or fall of 2013, while construction of the water
body crossings for the Project will take place in late summer or fall of 2014. The delay in the
replacement of topsoil between late summer 2013 to early 2015 has the potential to cause
erosion and surface runoff along the slopes and banks.
Request:
Please indicate:
a) how Enbridge will maintain the quality and quantity of the stored topsoil for the year
between Line 2 construction and Edmonton to Hardisty construction, should both projects be
approved;
b) how water quality will be protected from sedimentation during that period; and
c) how the proposed method of leaving the topsoil windrowed between projects compares to
replacement of the topsoil following Line 2 construction and re-stripping it again the
following year. For instance, what are the costs and benefits to the environment of both
methods?
Response
a) Topsoil Quality

Topsoil quality, for the purposes of this response, refers to the productivity of the topsoil
after storage and replacement (i.e., the ability for successful re-vegetation). Topsoil quality is
reflected in many aspects of the soil including physical, chemical and biological parameters.
The proposal to store topsoil for the year between the Line 2 Replacement Project
construction and Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project construction is one of the primary
mitigative options for maintaining topsoil quality. By limiting the amount of topsoil handling
during construction, potential impacts to the physical soil parameters (e.g., bulk density, soil
structure, etc.) can be reduced. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (Thurber) et al. (1990) suggest that
changes in physical properties which can occur as a result of repeated handling (e.g., topsoil
salvage and replacement) appear to be more serious than potential changes in the topsoil
during the storage period. Mitigative measures such as topsoil storage (rather than
replacement after construction of the Line 2 pipeline), postponing topsoil salvage operations
during wet conditions, and limiting the potential for admixing and compaction are presented
in Section 6 General Environmental Protection Measures [PDF pages 23 to 33, A3E0R4],
Section 8 Topsoil Salvage and Grading [PDF pages 42 to 47, A3E0R4], Section 9 Stringing,
Welding, Trenching and Lowering-in [PDF pages 48 to 51, A3E0R4] and Section 12.1 Clean-
up and Reclamation: Areas of Consecutive Construction Topsoil to Remain Stockpiled [PDF
pages 59 to 61, A3E0R4] of the Line 2 Replacement Project EPP. For portions of the Edmonton
to Hardisty Pipeline Project route which do not parallel the Line 2 Replacement Project route,
complementary mitigation to reduce potential effects on the physical properties of topsoil
are presented in Section 6 General Environmental Protection Measures [PDF pages 23 to
33, A3E2Y2], Section 8 Topsoil Salvage and Grading [PDF pages 42 to 48, A3E2Y2] and
Section 9 Stringing, Welding, Trenching and Lowering-in [PDF pages 49 to 52, A3E2Y2] of
the Pipeline EPP for the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02

The chemical properties of topsoil (e.g., pH, salt content, nitrogen, trace minerals, etc.) will
be maintained by keeping topsoils separate from subsoils (i.e., avoid admixing) and
conducting three-lift soils handling in locations with problem subsoils. Mitigation to reduce
potential effects on the chemical properties of topsoil is presented in Section 6 General
Environmental Protection Measures [PDF pages 23 to 33, A3E0R4], Section 8 Topsoil
Salvage and Grading [PDF pages 42 to 47, A3E0R4], Section 9 Stringing, Welding, Trenching
and Lowering-in [PDF pages 48 to 51, A3E0R4] and Section 12.1 Clean-up and Reclamation:
Areas of Consecutive Construction Topsoil to Remain Stockpiled [PDF pages 59 to 61,
A3E0R4] of the Line 2 Replacement Project EPP. For portions of the Edmonton to Hardisty
Pipeline Project route which do not parallel the Line 2 Replacement Project route,
complementary mitigation is presented in Section 6 General Environmental Protection
Measures [PDF pages 23 to 33, A3E2Y2], Section 8 Topsoil Salvage and Grading [PDF pages
42 to 48, A3E2Y2] and Section 9 Stringing, Welding, Trenching and Lowering-in [PDF pages
49 to 52, A3E2Y2] and Section 12 Clean-up and Reclamation [PDF pages 60 to 66, A3E2Y2]
of the Pipeline EPP for the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project. It is suggested that
potential chemical changes in topsoil quality resulting from storage can be remediated
through the application of fertilizer or manure (Thurber et al. 1990).
It is acknowledged that changes to the biological parameters of the topsoil have the potential
for more complex repercussions in restoring topsoil productivity. While some microorganisms
may take several years to recover, other bacteria and fungi increase in size to undisturbed
levels quickly after topsoil is re-spread (Thurber et al. 1990). In order to reduce potential
changes to the biological parameters of the topsoil during the storage period, effective
mitigative options include storage in low berms (e.g., windrows as opposed to large
stockpiles) and limiting the duration of the storage period to less than two years (Thurber et
al. 1990). Storage in low berms helps to avoid the creation of anaerobic conditions deep
within the stockpile thereby maintaining the bacterial and fungal populations. Storage of
topsoil for periods of two years or longer can reduce the viability of seeds and propagules in
the topsoil. Enbridge is proposing to salvage topsoil along the Line 2 right-of-way beginning
in August, 2013. Construction of the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project is anticipated to
begin in August 2014 with the first construction spread paralleling the Line 2 right-of-way.
Since minimal topsoil salvage will be required along this spread, Enbridge is estimating the
Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline will be installed within this construction spread in fall 2014
and that clean-up and reclamation, including topsoil replacement, can be completed during
non-frozen conditions. This schedule results in approximately 15 months of topsoil storage
duration between the two consecutive projects. In the event that topsoil replacement is not
completed prior to freeze-up in 2014 along this construction spread, it would be replaced in
spring/summer 2015 resulting in approximately 20 months of storage duration. Both options
meet the recommendations for not maintaining storage stockpiles for longer than two years.
Similar topsoil storage methods were implemented during the construction of the Enbridge
Alberta Clipper Project in Manitoba where topsoil remained windrowed up to 15 months
(Enbridge 2011a [PDF page 18, A1X4H9], 2011b [PDF page 20, A1X4I0]). The results of the
post-construction environmental monitoring (PCEM) program for the Alberta Clipper Project
suggest that, in general, there is good establishment of vegetation along the right-of-way,
including in Manitoba, which indicates that soil productivity can be maintained using these
topsoil storage methods.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Topsoil Quantity
The quantity of topsoil will be maintained through careful management of wind and water
erosion potential on the topsoil windrows for the duration between Line 2 Replacement
Project construction and Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project construction
(i.e., approximately one year). Section 12.1 Clean-up and Reclamation: Areas of Consecutive
Construction Topsoil to Remain Stockpiled of the Line 2 Replacement Project EPP [PDF
pages 59 to 61, A3E0R4] provides mitigative measures to be implemented following
construction of the Line 2 pipeline to ensure the right-of-way and topsoil windrows are
maintained during the storage period. Additional mitigative measures pertaining to potential
topsoil erosion are presented in the Line 2 Replacement Project EPP in Section 8 Topsoil
Salvage and Grading [PDF pages 42 to 47, A3E0R4], Appendix D11 Soil Erosion Contingency
Measures [PDF pages 112 and 113, A3E0R4] and Appendix D19 Tackification Measures [PDF
pages 126 and 127, A3E0R4].
In addition to the mitigation in the Line 2 Replacement Project and Edmonton to Hardisty
Pipeline Project EPPs, results from the Soil Surveys have been included on the project-specific
Environmental Alignment Sheets in Appendix 2 of the ESAs for the Line 2 Replacement
Project [A3E0R8] and the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project [A3E2Y5 to A3E2Z2]. Soil
concerns identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets include locations susceptible to
rutting and compaction, unstable trench walls, wind or water erosion and deep or shallow
topsoils; locations where three-lift soils handling is recommended and locations with
potential for bedrock at trench depth.
b) Mitigative measures to ensure water quality is maintained, including protection from
sedimentation, during the period between construction of the Line 2 Replacement Project
and the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project are presented in the Line 2 Replacement
Project EPP within Section 12.1 Clean up and Reclamation: Areas of Consecutive
Construction Topsoil to Remain Stockpiled [PDF pages 59 to 61, A3E0R4].
c) As stated in the Line 2 Replacement Project EPP, Section 12.0 Clean-up and Reclamation
[PDF page 59, A3E0R4], clean-up and reclamation activities along most of the Line 2
Replacement Project construction right-of-way will occur after backfilling activities associated
with the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project. Clean-up and reclamation of the Line 2
Replacement Project route is anticipated to be limited to isolated segments of the
construction right-of-way (e.g., wetlands, watercourses and where specifically requested by
landowners or land authority).
From an environmental perspective, the intent of the soil handling plan is to maintain topsoil
quality by reducing mixing of topsoil and subsoil due to multiple disturbances from topsoil
handling. This is appropriate:
when the two projects are contiguous and where the areas of topsoil salvage overlap;
when salvaged topsoil is to be stored for approximately one year and not more than
two years;
when topsoil storage space is available for the duration of the two projects such that
the storage berm will not be frequently disturbed;
where subsoil compaction would need to be alleviated or grade spoil replaced prior to
the replacement of topsoil; and

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
when additional mitigative measures to protect soil from erosion and weed infestation
are considered.
As mentioned in the Request, the alternate option is to replace the salvaged topsoils
following construction of the Line 2 Replacement Project and re-salvage topsoils during
construction of the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project. Enbridge reviewed existing
literature (Thurber et al. 1990), sought input from a soils expert (Mentiga Pedology
Consultants Inc.) and evaluated the outcomes of similar scenarios on other recent Enbridge
construction projects in order to select an option. There are costs (cons) and benefits (pros)
to each option.
Potential costs to the environment from leaving topsoil windrowed include the possibility for
reduction of organics (e.g., bacteria, decomposing organic matter) at depth within the
windrow, potential for wind and water erosion, weed infestation of the windrows, impeding
cross drainage. Depending on the situation, landowner inconvenience may be another
potential cost, although not strictly a cost to the environment. Mitigative options are
available to reduce erosion potential, limit the potential for the spread of weeds, ensure
appropriate drainage is maintained and compensate for landowner inconvenience. In regards
to the potential reduction of organics within the windrow, Thurber et al. (1990) suggests that
some microbial populations (i.e., bacteria and fungi) increase in size to undisturbed levels
quickly after topsoil is re-spread while other microorganisms may take several years to
recover.
The benefit to the environment of leaving topsoil windrowed between the two construction
projects is the limited soil handling which would be required (i.e., reduction in physical
disturbance). By limiting the amount of soil handling that occurs there is substantially less
opportunity for topsoil and subsoil admixing. Potential for admixing occurs not only during
the topsoil salvage phase of the project, but also during compaction alleviation and topsoil
replacement. Thurber et al. (1990) also recommends limited disturbance of topsoil stockpiles
as changes to the physical properties of the soil may cause more topsoil degradation than the
actual storage in stockpiles.
Thurber et al. (1990) conducted a literature review on the topic of soil storage on topsoil
quality (focused on practices in Alberta) and concluded that topsoil storage in stockpiles does
not appear to have any severe or long term effects on topsoil quality. As discussed in
response a) above, similar topsoil storage methods were implemented during construction of
the Enbridge Alberta Clipper Project in Manitoba where topsoil remained windrowed up to
15 months (Enbridge 2011a [PDF page 18, A1X4H9], 2011b [PDF page 20, A1X4I0]) and it
appears through the PCEM program that soil productivity has been maintained.
REFERENCES
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011a. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report Year 1
for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project - Spread 10. January 2011.
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 2011b. Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Report Year 1
for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Project Spread 12. January 2011.
Thurber Consultants Ltd., Land Resources Network Ltd., and Norwest Soil Research Ltd. 1990.
Review of the effects of storage on topsoil quality. Alberta Land Conservation and
Reclamation Council Report No. RRTAC 90-5. 116 pp.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02

1.27 Fish-Bearing Watercourses and Wetlands
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Appendix 6 Aquatics
Assessment, page 26 (PDF page 30 of 35, A3E2Z8);
ii) Application, Volume I, Section 7.1.2 Line Pipe Design, pages 7-193 and 7-194 (PDF page 6-7
of 218, A3E2W1).
Preamble:
In reference i), Enbridge indicates that to help ensure that the aquatic capacity of each
watercourse and fish-bearing wetland is not compromised during instream activities, a
Qualified Aquatic Environmental Specialist (QAES) should review the mitigation measures
relevant to watercourse and fish-bearing wetland crossings and any additional changes to
these mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for the
Project.
In reference ii), the recommended pipeline crossing methods are presented for each
watercourse traversed by the proposed pipeline route.
Request:
a) Please describe when the QAES will review the watercourse crossing techniques and
proposed mitigation measures; and
b) Please indicate how and when the additional mitigation measures will be incorporated into
the EPP, and when Enbridge plans to submit the final EPP to the Board.
Response
a) The mitigation measures outlined in the draft EPP were reviewed, and recommendations
were provided, by a QAES prior to submission to the Board in December 2012. A QAES will
continue to review the mitigation measures as new information becomes available from
regulators, project design teams and supplemental field surveys in regards to watercourse
crossing techniques and proposed mitigation measures. The mitigation measures outlined in
the final EPP will ensure the aquatic capacity of each watercourse and fish-bearing wetland is
not compromised during instream activities.

b) As new information becomes available from regulators, project design teams and
supplemental field surveys, additional mitigative measures will be incorporated into the EPP
and will be reviewed by a QAES prior to finalization of the EPP. The final EPP will be
submitted to Board 60 days prior to construction.

1.28 Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) of Mill Creek
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Section 5.1.3 Water
Quality and Quantity, page 5-10 (PDF page 38 of 129, A3E2X9)
ii) Application, Volume I, Section 7 Engineering, pages 7-193 & 7-194 (PDF page 6-7 of 18,
A3E2W1)

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
iii) Application, Volume I, Section 8.6 Pipeline Construction, page 8-260 (PDF page 4 of 29,
A3E2W4)
iv) Application, Volume IIA, Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment, Appendix 6:
Aquatics Assessment, page 21 (PDF page 25 of 35, A3E2Z8)
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that the proposed pipeline crosses four named watercourses: Mill
Creek, Goldbar Creek, Irvine Creek and Battle River, two unnamed tributaries to Iron Creek,
one unnamed ditch and two unnamed fish-bearing wetlands (and numerous other non fish-
bearing wetlands and drainages).
Reference ii) indicates that the recommended pipeline crossing method for both Mill Creek
and Battle River is a trenchless crossing.
However, reference iii) indicates that currently only the Battle River is being considered as a
trenchless crossing.
Reference iv) indicates that Mill Creek may be crossed using a trenchless method for reasons
unrelated to the recommendations in this report.
Reference iii) indicates that feasibility studies may be completed on the constructability of
additional HDDs at a number of major road and pipeline corridor crossings where trenchless
techniques are being considered as the primary crossing method. This reference further
indicates that these crossings, in addition to the Battle River, will be finalized during detailed
engineering, and a final HDD Plan, including contingency plans, will be submitted to the Board
as required.
Request:
a) a status update on the preferred crossing method for Mill Creek, including a justification
for the preferred crossing method; and
b) confirmation of when the Board can expect a final HDD plan for all proposed trenchless
crossings, including contingency plans.
Response
a) The preferred crossing method for Mill Creek is a trenchless technique in order to abide by
a Strathcona County conservation easement. Enbridge confirms that Mill Creek will be
crossed via HDD.
b) Enbridge will submit final HDD plans and contingency plans for all proposed trenchless
crossings by no later than the end of February, 2014.
1.29 2013 Field Surveys
Reference:
i) Application, Volume II, Section 1, page 1-1 (PDF page 1 of 10 A3E2X7)
ii) Application, Volume II, Section 10 Supplemental Studies, page 10-1 (PDF page 99 of 104,
A3E2Y1)
iii) Application, Volume II, Appendix 1A : Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan, Section 1.2,

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
page 1 (PDF page 7 of 152, A3E2Y2)
Preamble:
Reference i) indicates that pending regulatory approval, construction of the pump stations
and facilities is anticipated to commence as early as Q1 2014, with pipeline construction
anticipated to commence in August 2014 with a Project in-service date of Q1 2015, with the
exception of the Kingman pump station which has an anticipated in-service date of Q3 2015.
Reference ii) indicates that supplemental historical resources, aquatic, wetland, vegetation,
weed, wildlife and soil surveys are planned for the spring/summer of 2013 to collect
additional required information for the Project. The proposed site-specific mitigation
identified in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this ESA, the EPPs (Appendices 1A and 1B of this ESA) and
on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of this ESA), will be updated and
reissued, if warranted, upon the completion of the supporting studies.
Reference iii) specifies that the lack of land access prevented the completion of some
environmental surveys in 2012. Consequently, supplemental environmental surveys will be
conducted along select segments of the route in 2013. Upon the completion of the
supplemental surveys, the EPP and Environmental Alignment Sheet Package will be updated
to include any new information.
Request:
Please submit a table that lists all surveys planned for 2013. For each entry, please:
a) identify the specific information that will be collected;
b) include the planned survey sites, the timing for conducting the survey, and the rationale
for both;
c) provide a schedule for the submission of the survey to the Board;
d) clarify which section(s) of the Application, EPP or Environmental Alignment Sheets will be
updated as a result of the survey and when these updates will be submitted to the Board;
e) identify whether the survey methods will be the same as those described in reference ii)
for the corresponding 2012 survey, and if there will be any differences, please describe the
revised survey methodology and the reason for the revisions;
f) identify the position and provide the relevant qualifications of personnel designing the
survey methods;
g) identify the position and provide the relevant qualifications of personnel conducting the
survey; and
h) describe the involvement of other government departments or agencies (for example,
consultation on methods or related mitigation measures; permit Application; whether they
will receive a copy of the survey).
Response
Please note, Enbridge acknowledges the Boards request for a table that lists all surveys
planned for 2013 with details a) through h) provided for each entry. However, due to the
volume of information required in the response, a table was unfeasible and the responses

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
have been presented in full text format for each biophysical discipline.
Please note that the responses herein are based on current knowledge of the pipeline route
at the time of the IR response submission. Additional quarter-sections may require
supplemental field studies pending further minor route refinements and/or additions to
temporary workspace.
Aquatics
a) The specific information that will be collected at the sites visited during the supplemental
2013 aquatic spring surveys will be the same information collected during the open water
2012 aquatic assessments [Appendix 6 of the ESA, A3E2Z8]. The specific information collected
for watercourse crossings along the proposed pipeline route follows the required information
to be collected according to provincial (i.e., Alberta Water Act) and federal (i.e., Navigable
Waters Protection Act and Fisheries Act) legislation. In addition, supporting documents such
as Bain and Stevenson (1999), Bisson et al. (1981) and Alberta Transportation (2001) have
also been used in determining the specific information to be collected in order to
appropriately document the baseline aquatic environment conditions.
The information required provincially is provided in Schedules 4 of the Codes of Practice for
Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (Alberta Environment 2000a)
and Watercourse Crossings (Alberta Environment [AENV] 2000b) and in the Guidelines for
Aquatic Environment Assessments, Specifications and Recommendations of the Guide to the
Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body, Including
Guidelines for Complying with the Code of Practice (AENV 2000c) and Part B Aquatic and
Biological Site Assessments of the Guide to the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings
including Guidelines for Complying with the Code of Practice (AENV 2000d).
Federally, Transport Canada requires specific information in order to determine navigability.
This information is outlined in Transport Canadas Minor Waters User Guide (Transport
Canada 2010) and helps Transport Canada determine navigability, even for projects that do
not fall under the Minor Works Policies. Although, the Fisheries Act does not outline specific
information to be collected, sufficient information must be provided to Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO) in order for them to complete a case-specific review. The information collected
under the Codes of Practice and from the above-mentioned supporting documents provides
sufficient information for DFO to complete a case-specific review of a watercourse crossing.
The above-mentioned documents and supporting documents were used to determine the
specific information that was collected during the open water 2012 aquatic assessments and
that which will be collected during the supplemental 2013 aquatic spring surveys.
b) Two survey sites will be visited during the supplemental 2013 aquatic spring surveys. Both
are potential watercourse crossings on unnamed tributaries to Iron Creek at SW 7-45-
13 W4M and NW 8-43-10 W4M. These two survey sites were identified during the desktop
review of the proposed pipeline route and have not been visited in the field to date.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
The site in SW 7-45-13 W4M is along a realigned portion of the route and replaces the site in
NE 12-45-14 W4M (previously identified as a site to be visited during supplemental studies in
the Aquatic Assessment Report [Appendix 6 of the ESA, A3E2Z8] and Section 10 of the ESA
[A3E2Y1]). The site in NE 12-45-14 W4M was not visited during the open water 2012 aquatic
assessments since landowner access had not been obtained at the time of the 2012
assessment. The site NE 12-45-14 W4M is no longer crossed by the proposed pipeline route
due to the realignment and will not be visited.
The site in NW 8-43-10 W4M was also not visited at the time of the open water 2012 aquatic
assessments since landowner access had not been obtained.
The supplemental 2013 aquatic spring surveys are anticipated to be conducted during the
mid to end of May of 2013 and timing of the survey will be dependent on water flows,
weather conditions and landowner permission. The supplemental aquatic spring surveys will
be conducted during open water conditions in order to collect the specific information as
provided in response (a).
c) The supplemental 2013 survey results will be provided to the NEB upon completion of the
surveys, once the mitigative measures have been developed, reviewed, discussed with the
appropriate regulators (if warranted) and accepted. The anticipated month for submission to
the NEB is October 2013.
d) If the sites are determined to be watercourses (i.e., have defined bed and banks), the
applicable Environmental Alignment Sheet(s) will be revised to reflect the updated
information. Table 2 of the Environmental Alignment Sheet Package will be revised to include
the new crossing details. In the event that site-specific mitigation is required that is not
already included in Section 13 of the Pipeline EPP [A3E2Y2], the appropriate mitigation will be
added. If the mitigation currently presented in the Pipeline EPP is deemed sufficient, no
updates will be made in regards to water crossings.
If the sites are determined not to be watercourses, no revisions to the Pipeline EPP or
Environmental Alignment Sheet Package will be required.
e) The supplemental 2013 aquatic spring survey methods will be the same methods as those
described in the corresponding 2012 open water aquatic assessments in the Aquatic
Assessment Report [Appendix 6 of the ESA, A3E2Z8]. There will be no differences between
the survey methods. Baseline survey methods for the 2012 open water aquatic assessments
were discussed with federal (i.e., DFO and Transport Canada) and provincial (i.e., Alberta
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development [AESRD]) agencies on July 3, 2012.
f) The aquatic assessment methods for the proposed pipeline route outlined in the Aquatic
Assessment Report [A3E2Z8] were developed collectively by TERA Environmental
Consultants (TERA) Aquatics Discipline. The Aquatics Discipline Manager has 26 years of
experience in fisheries, a Master of Science in Biology (M.Sc.) and is a professional biologist
(P. Biol) with the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists (ASPB). The Aquatic Field
Protocol/Technical Field Trainer has 21 years of experience in fisheries and is a registered

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
professional biologist (R.P. Bio) with the Association of Professional Biology in British
Columbia (APB). The Aquatic Project Lead has eight years of experience in fisheries and is a
P. Biol and R.P. Bio with the ASPB and the APB, respectively. The Field Crew Lead has
three years of experience in fisheries and is a Biologist In Training (B.I.T.) with the ASPB. The
Field Crew Member also has three years of experience in fisheries and is a B.I.T. with the
ASPB.
All five of these TERA personnel are Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialists (QAESs), which
is a generalized, self-delegated certification based on the ability to make sound, confident
environmental decisions, years of experience, training, schooling and affiliation with an
organization. A QAES will ensure that the proponent or regulator have the professional
competencies necessary to achieve environmental objectives. According to the AESRD Codes
of Practice, a QAES refers to a person who (i) possesses a post-secondary degree in biological
sciences, technical diploma in biological sciences or educational equivalencies (ii) has a
detailed knowledge of the aquatic environment, including fish and fish habitat, management
and assessment and (iii) is currently experienced with fisheries and aquatic environment
assessment methods and the determination of mitigation measures required to maintain the
productive capacity of the aquatic environment, including fish habitats in Alberta that may be
adversely affected by the carrying out of works in and adjacent to the water bed and shore of
waterbodies (AENV 2000a,b).
These five qualified TERA personnel and the additional 20 TERA personnel in the Aquatics
Discipline mentioned above have all participated in determining the field survey methods for
the proposed pipeline route outlined in the Aquatic Assessment Report [Appendix 6 of the
ESA, A3E2Z8].
g) The Field Crew Lead that will be conducting the supplemental 2013 aquatic spring surveys
was the same Field Crew Lead that conducted the 2012 open water aquatic assessments for
the proposed pipeline route. The Field Crew Lead has three years of experience in fisheries
and is a B.I.T. with the ASPB. The Field Crew Member that will be conducting the
supplemental 2013 aquatic spring surveys also participated as a Field Crew Member during
the 2012 open water aquatic assessments for the proposed pipeline route. The Field Crew
Member also has three years of experience in fisheries and is a B.I.T. with the ASPB. The Field
Crew Lead and the Field Crew Member are also both QAESs as defined above in (f). The Field
Crew Lead and Field Crew Member will be in communication with the Aquatic Project Lead
throughout the supplemental 2013 aquatic spring surveys.
In the event the aforementioned field personnel are not available to conduct the survey, a
suitable alternate(s) QAES with similar qualifications will be supplied by TERA.
h) Baseline survey methods for the 2012 open water aquatic assessments were discussed
with federal (i.e., DFO and Transport Canada) and provincial (i.e., AESRD) agencies on July 3,
2012. A Fish Research Licence (FRL) application was submitted to AESRD on April 12, 2013 in
order to obtain a permit to conduct fish sampling at the survey sites if warranted. A condition
of the FRL is to submit data collected under the FRL back to AESRD including a copy of the

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
report. If the survey sites are determined to be watercourses, the survey results will be
submitted to AESRD (i.e., Codes of Practice notification), Transport Canada and DFO as
appropriate.
Heritage Resources
a) The specific information that will be collected at the sites visited during the supplemental
2013 HRIA surveys will be the same as the information collected during the 2012 HRIAs
(Section 6.2.13 of the ESA [PDF pages 148 to 153, A3E2Y0]). The supplemental 2013 HRIA
field survey will consist of an assessment to determine the effects of the proposed operation
or activity on historical resources in the area where the operation or activity will be carried
out, as per the Guidelines for Archaeological Permit Holders in Alberta (Archaeological Survey
of Alberta 1989).
This assessment is based on observation and recording of factors influencing historic resource
site potential (e.g., proximity to known historical resources, proximity to notable waterbodies
and watercourses, slope, terrain features, drainage characteristics, vegetation and existing
disturbances) for each survey location, as well as any observed evidence of historic resources
(cultural features [including historic structures], Precontact and Historic Period artifacts,
and/or palaeontological resources).
b) A total of 26 quarter-sections have been targeted for supplemental 2013 HRIA field
surveys. Supplemental HRIA studies will be completed for portions of the Project with high
potential for intact historical resource sites, to address the following:
Project revisions made following completion of the 2012 HRIA (i.e., reroutes, shooflies,
extra temporary workspaces);
portions of the Project Footprint for which inability to access the lands prevented
completion of the HRIA field studies in 2012; and
lands in the local environs of the proposed Battle River crossing for which deep testing
and/or excavation of a sample of controlled excavation units at identified historical resource
sites FdOt-1, FdOt-9 and FdOt-10 remain outstanding due to the onset of early winter
conditions in 2012.
See Table 1 for a list of the planned supplemental HRIA survey sites and rationale.
The 2013 supplemental HRIA surveys are anticipated for late April through May. Late
April/early May is the earliest date that snow-free, frost-free conditions, which improve the
efficiency of HRIA surveys, are expected in the Project area. Since timing of HRIA survey is
dependent not only on weather, but also on regulatory permitting, acquisition of proximity
agreements for deep testing and landowner consent, there is potential that the 2013
supplemental HRIA surveys will continue throughout the summer and fall as the required
conditions are met.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
TABLE 1

LANDS SUBECT TO SUPPLEMENTAL 2013 HRIA
Legal Location
Reason for 2013
Survey Rationale for Survey Location
SE 34-51-23 W4M
reroute; new
workspace
Extra temporary workspace in proximity
to homestead site FiPh-14 (HRV 4)
SW 35-51-23 W4M
reroute; new
workspace
Potential for historic structures
SW 31-51-22 W4M reroute Potential for historic structures
NW 30-51-22 W4M reroute Potential for historic structures
SW 30-51-22 W4M reroute Potential for historic structures
SE 8-51-22 W4M reroute Potential for historic structures
NE 32-50-22 W4M reroute Potential for historic structures
NW 33-50-22 W4M reroute Potential for historic structures
SE 23-43-11 W4M new shoofly Potential for archaeological sites
NE 8-43-10 W4M not accessed in 2012 Potential for archaeological sites
NW 8-43-10 W4M not accessed in 2012 Potential for archaeological sites
SE 8-43-10 W4M not accessed in 2012 Potential for archaeological sites
SW 9-43-10 W4M not accessed in 2012 Potential for archaeological sites
SE 9-43-10 W4M not accessed in 2012
Proximity to archaeological site FeOu-12
(HRV 3); potential for archaeological
sites
NE 4-43-10 W4M not accessed in 2012 Potential for archaeological sites
NW 3-43-10 W4M not accessed in 2012 Potential for archaeological sites
SW 2-43-10 W4M
additional
assessment
Deep deposits identified during 2012
HRIA - potential for deeply buried
archaeological sites
NE 35-42-10 W4M
additional
assessment
Phase II HRIA testing (deep testing
and/or controlled excavation of a
sample of 1x1 m test units at
archaeological sites FdOt-1 (HRV 4), and
FdOt-10 (recommended HRV 4)
SE 35-42-10 W4M
additional
assessment
archaeological site FdOt-9
(recommended HRV 4)
SW 36-42-10 W4M
additional
assessment
archaeological site FdOt-9
(recommended HRV 4)
NE 25-42-10 W4M
additional
assessment
HRIA (cutbank examination negative)

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
NW 30-42-9 W4M
additional
assessment
HRIA - potential for deeply buried
archaeological sites
SW 30-42-9 W4M not accessed in 2012
Proximity to archaeological sites FdOt-
24 (HRV 3) and FdOt-31 (HRV 3);
potential for archaeological sites
SE 30-42-9 W4M not accessed in 2012 Potential for archaeological sites

c) The HRIA final report will be submitted to Alberta Culture for regulatory review
upon completion of all required assessment and mitigation. HRA clearance will be
requested prior to construction and a copy of the clearance submitted to the Board
once received.
d) Should any heritage resource sites be identified which warrant avoidance or
mitigation prior to construction, these will be identified on the Environmental
Alignment Sheets. Since the Project-specific mitigation identified in Sections 6.0
and 7.0 of the ESA [A3E2Y0 and A3E2Y1, respectively] and outlined in the Heritage
Resources Discovery Contingency Plan within the Pipeline EPP [A3E2Y2] will be
implemented for any historic resource site identified during the supplemental 2013
HRIA surveys, there are no anticipated changes the Pipeline EPP.
e) The methods for the supplemental 2013 HRIA field studies are consistent with
those accepted by Alberta Culture for Archaeological Research Permit 12-217,
under which the 2012 HRIA was conducted for the Project.
With the exception of the revised schedule for deep testing, the supplemental
2013 HRIA survey methods will be the same methods as those outlined in Section
6.2.13.2 of the ESA [PDF pages 148 to 153, A3E2Y0]. Deep testing by auger or
backhoe within the local environs of the Battle River was not conducted in
November/December 2012. The deep testing will be conducted as part of the
supplemental 2013 HRIA survey activities, currently anticipated to be conducted in
late April/May 2013.
f) The methods for the supplemental 2013 HRIA are standardized HRIA methods
collectively designed by the current and past members of TERAs Archaeology
team. These methods are in keeping with those outlined in the Guidelines for
Archaeological Permit Holders in Alberta (Archaeological Survey of Alberta 1989)
and are consistent with those accepted by Alberta Culture.
Methods specific to the Project, including selection of target areas for HRIA field
studies, were designed by the Archaeology Field Crew Lead/Permit Holder. The
Field Crew Lead/Permit Holder has a Masters of Arts (M.A.) in Anthropology (with
specialization in Archaeology), 20 years consulting experience in Western Canadian
archaeology, and has held Archaeological Permit Holder status in the Province of
Alberta for the past 12 years. The Archaeology Field Crew Lead/Permit Holder is

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
recognized by the regulatory agency (Alberta Culture) as qualified to design survey
methods for HRIA.
The permit application submitted to Alberta Culture for the supplemental 2013
HRIA survey contains a description of the survey methods and target areas
proposed. As such, the methods are subject to review and approval by Alberta
Culture. Granting of the permit implies acceptance of the proposed methods.
g) The Archaeology Field Crew Lead/Permit Holder that will be conducting the
supplemental 2013 HRIA survey will be the same Field Crew Lead/Permit Holder
that conducted the 2012 HRIA for the proposed pipeline route. The Field Crew
Lead/Permit Holder has a M.A. in Anthropology (with specialization in
Archaeology), 20 years consulting experience in Western Canadian archaeology,
and has held Archaeological Permit Holder status in the Province of Alberta for the
past 12 years. The Archaeology Field Crew Lead/Permit Holder is recognized by the
regulatory agency (Alberta Culture) as qualified to conduct the HRIA survey. Crew
members will be assigned to support the Field Crew Lead/Permit Holder from
TERAs Archaeology team.
In the event the aforementioned field personnel are not available to conduct the
survey, a suitable alternate(s) with similar qualifications will be supplied.
h) The supplemental 2013 HRIA will be conducted under an Archaeological
Research Permit, which will be issued by the Historic Resources Management
Branch of Alberta Culture. A permit application was submitted to Alberta Culture
on April 10, 2013 in order to obtain this permit. The final report for the HRIA will be
submitted to Alberta Culture for review and approval prior to the onset of
construction activities for those portions of Project which still require HRA
clearance. Should any conditions be placed on the HRA clearance issued for the
Project by Alberta Culture (i.e., in the form of a Schedule B HRA Requirements
Letter or any subsequent Schedules issued by Alberta Culture), the mitigative
requirements may warrant discussion with Alberta Culture.
Soils
a) The specific information that will be collected at the sites visited during the
supplemental 2013 soil surveys will be the same information collected during the
earlier soil surveys [Appendix 3 of the ESA, A3E2Z3] in order to map the soil
resources, to provide baseline data, to map present land use, to evaluate the
suitability of the soils for reclamation and to provide material handling
recommendations. The soils and landscapes will be described in terms of landform,
surficial materials, slope, texture, stoniness, topsoil thickness, drainage conditions,
profile morphology and soil chemistry. The suitability of the soils for reclamation
will be evaluated according to the guidelines of the Alberta Soils Advisory
Committee (ASAC 1987). The soils will also be evaluated for alternate material

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
handling according to the guidelines of the Alberta Pipeline Environmental Steering
Committee (APESC 1996).
b) Supplemental soil surveys will be conducted at locations where the pipeline
route was realigned and existing soil data are not sufficient, locations where deep
testing (i.e., 1.9 m) is required and one location where the landowner imported
topsoil to the property. Table 2 provides a summary of locations and rationale.
Field surveys are scheduled to occur as soon as reasonably practical during snow-
free, non-frozen conditions (i.e., when a truck can access the property without
damaging topsoil), ideally before crops are seeded. This is likely to occur in early
May 2013.
TABLE 2

2013 SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL SURVEY LOCATIONS
Legal Location
(W4M) Rationale
SE 36-51-23 Realignment
SW 31-51-22 Realignment
NW 30-51-22 Realignment
SW 30-51-22 Realignment /
topsoil improvements
E 15-50-22 Realignment
NE 10-50-22 Realignment
NW 11-50-22 Realignment
NE 32-48-20 Realignment
NE 22-46-16 Deep testing
NW 23-46-16 Deep testing
SE 23-46-16 Deep testing
SW 18-46-15 Deep testing

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
SE 18-46-15 Deep testing
SW 9-46-15 Deep testing
S 13-45-14 Realignment
W 7-45-13 Realignment

c) The supplemental 2013 survey results will be provided to the NEB upon
completion of the surveys, once the mitigative measures have been developed,
reviewed, discussed with the appropriate regulators (if warranted) and accepted.
The anticipated month for submission to the NEB is October 2013.
d) The distribution and extent of the various soils identified along the proposed
route during supplemental studies will be delineated on the Environmental
Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of the ESA [A3E2Y5 to A3E2Z2]). Average depth of
topsoil, topography and present land use will also be indicated on the
Environmental Alignment Sheets. Table 1 in the Environmental Alignment Sheet
Package will be revised to reflect the updated soil information for the pipeline
route.
For soil units not previously identified on the Project Footprint which have specific
mitigative requirements (e.g., a requirement for overstripping), Section 8 of the
Pipeline EPP [A3E2Y2] will be updated to include the soil unit-specific mitigation. In
the event that no new soil units are identified (e.g., all soil units characterized
during the supplemental studies are already discussed in the Project application),
the EPP will not be updated since the current mitigative measures are considered
sufficient.
e) Supplemental soil surveys will be conducted following the methodology
described in Appendix 3 of the ESA [A3E2Z3].
f) The person who designed the soil survey is the founder/owner of the
subconsulting company, Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd (Mentiga). The
subconsultant has a M.Sc. in Soil Science, over 45 years of related soils experience
and is a member of the Alberta Society of Agrologists, the Agricultural Institute of
Canada, the Canadian Society of Soil Science and the International Society of Soil
Science.
g) The person who will be conducting the soil survey is the same person as
identified in response (f) with a suitably qualified assistant. In the event that
Mentiga is unavailable for unforeseen reasons, a suitable alternate subconsultant

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
with the experience in pipeline soil surveys for suitability and reclamation will be
supplied to conduct the assessment using Mentigas methodology.
h) Generally, soil survey methods and mitigation do not require the involvement of
government departments or agencies. In the event that AESRDs Public Lands
department (for provincial Crown lands) or the landowner has specific requests for
soil handling on a particular property, the requests are considered, discussed and,
if appropriate, may be included on the Project Line List for implementation during
construction.
Vegetation
supplemental 2013 vegetation surveys will be the same information collected
during the 2012 vegetation surveys [Appendix 8 of the ESA, A3E3A6]. During the
2013 supplemental vegetation surveys, a vegetation specialist will identify
uncommon sites or habitat features along the proposed pipeline route with high
potential to support rare plant species; identify rare plant species and rare
ecological communities along the proposed pipeline route as defined by the
Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC), the Alberta Wildlife Act and/or the Alberta Conservation
Information Management System (ACIMS); and record the abundance and
distribution of non-native, invasive species.
b) In accordance with established rare plant survey guidelines (Alberta Native Plant
Council [ANPC] 2012), both early and late-season rare plant survey are
recommended during the active growing season.
Early and late-season vegetation surveys were conducted on lands under native
vegetation crossed by the Project route in 2012. Realigned segments of the
proposed route, workspace areas and temporary access (e.g., shoo-flies) and
locations that were not accessible due to a lack of landowner permission during the
2012 vegetation surveys will be targeted for survey in 2013 (Table 2).
An early-season vegetation survey is anticipated to be conducted from in late
May/June 2013. A supplemental late-season vegetation survey may be
recommended on some or all of these areas, pending the results of the early-
season survey.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
TABLE 2

2013 SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION SURVEY LOCATIONS
Legal Location
(W4M)
Length
2
(km)
Land Use /
Key Habitat
Types
Encountered
NE 32-52-23 0.1 wetland
SW 35-51-23 0.2 wetlands
SE 36-51-23 0.1 wetland
NW 30-51-22 0.6
potential
native prairie
NE 19-51-22 0.1 wetland
SE 19-51-22 0.1 wetland
SW 17-51-22 0.1 wetland
SE17-51-22 0.1 wetland
SE 4-51-22 0.2 wetland
SW 27-50-22 0.3 wetland
SE 15-50-22 0.6 treed
NE 10-50-22 0.4 treed
SE-29-49-21-4 0.4 native prairie
SE-5-49-20-4 0.1 wetland
SW-4-49-20-4 0.1 wetland
SW-34-48-20-4 0.2 native prairie
NW-5-48-18-4 0.4
native prairie,
wetland
SE-5-48-18-4 0.1 wetland
SE-4-48-18-4 0.1 wetland

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Legal Location
(W4M)
Length
2
(km)
Land Use /
Key Habitat
Types
Encountered
NE-33-47-18-4 0.5 wetland
SW-34-47-18-4 0.1 wetland
SW-18-46-15-4 0.2 wetland
SW-2-46-15-4 0.3 wetland
NW-34-44-13-4 0.6 wetland
NE-26-44-13-4 0.5 wetland
SW-19-44-12-4 0.5 wetland
SE-19-44-12-4 0.3 wetland
NE-17-44-12-4 0.5 wetland
SE-23-43-11-4 0.5 wetland
NW-8-43-10-4 0.8 native prairie
NE-8-43-10-4 0.7 native prairie
NW-3-43-10-4 0.2 wetland
SW-30-42-9-4 0.2 native prairie

Note: 1 All distances are approximate


OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
d) The Pipeline EPP [A3E2Y2] does not include site-specific mitigation for vegetation
species of concern; rather, it is presented in Table 3 of the Environmental Alignment
Sheet Package. If additional vegetation species of concern are documented during
the supplemental surveys, Table 3 of the Environmental Alignment Sheet Package
will be revised to include the new locations and recommended mitigative measures
for the species or population. Locations of newly observed vegetation species of
concern will be identified on the applicable Environmental Alignment Sheet(s).
e) The 2013 vegetation survey methodology is the same as described in the
Vegetation Survey Report [Appendix 8 of the ESA, A3E3A6].
f) TERAs vegetation survey methodology is based on the Alberta Native Plant
Council (ANPC) Guidelines for Rare Plant Surveys in Alberta (ANPC 2012). Vegetation
specialists traverse each selected segment of the route, note the dominant plant
communities, record all identifiable species, and search for rare plants and
uncommon habitat. A purposeful meander technique is used to survey the proposed
right-of-way. At locations where potentially important microsites are observed,
more detailed searches are performed.
g) The 2013 vegetation surveys will be conducted by a yet-to-be-determined
subconsultant with substantial experience conducting vegetation surveys
accompanied by a vegetation specialist from TERA. The vegetation specialist has five
years of related experience, a B.Sc. and is a B.I.T. with the ASPB.
h) Pursuant to Section A.2.5 of the NEB Filing Manual, Enbridge and TERA initiated
contact with appropriate representatives from applicable federal (e.g., Environment
Canada) and provincial (e.g., Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation [ATPR], AESRD)
regulatory agencies seeking consultation on vegetation survey methodology. To
date, no unique or Project-specific survey requirements differing from the survey
methodology provided have been requested by representatives from ATPR, AESRD
or Environment Canada.
Weeds
a) Weed surveys are conducted prior to the commencement of construction
activities to assist in the identification and subsequent control of existing weed
infestations and to recommend mitigation to reduce or limit the potential spread of
weeds to adjacent lands. Some weed species are difficult to manage, aggressive and
invasive, and can result in the displacement or substantial alteration of native plant
communities and/or economic losses either from loss of crop production or the cost
of weed control.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
The weed survey will be conducted in all agricultural areas encountered by the
proposed pipeline route and temporary workspace areas. Specific information
collected will include weed species, UTM coordinates and species distributions.
Distributions for each weed species observed are assigned according to the British
Columbia Ministry of Forests codes (Luttmerding et al. 1990). While a scale for the
estimation of weed abundance exists in Alberta (AENV 2003), the BC Ministry of
Forests codes are more descriptive since they encompass both density and
distribution, and provide a visual schematic and verbal description of each of the
nine codes.
The weed survey and subsequent reporting provides the results of the
literature/desktop review and the field survey conducted for the Project. This
information will be used for planning purposes to identify and mitigate potential
effects of the Project on the introduction and spread of weed species.
b) Weeds were recorded incidentally during the 2012 vegetation surveys [Appendix
8 of the ESA, A3E3A6]. The agricultural areas encountered by the proposed pipeline
route and temporary workspace areas not included in the 2012 vegetation surveys
(Table 3) will be surveyed for weeds and non-listed, non-native species in summer
2013 prior to construction. Identification of weed species along the proposed
pipeline route is ideally completed during the growing season. This weed survey is
anticipated to occur on all lands in June, 2013.
TABLE 3

2013 SUPPLEMENTAL WEED SURVEY LOCATIONS
Legal Locations (W4M)
NE 32-52-23 NW 36-49-22 NE 12-48-19 SW 24-46-16 NE 10-44-12
SE 32-52-23 NE 36-49-22 SE 12-48-19 NW 13-46-16 SE 10-44-12
SW 33-52-23 SE 36-49-22 SW 7-48-18 NE 13-46-16 SW 11-44-12
NW 28-52-23 SW 31-49-21 SE 7-48-18 NW 18-46-15 SE 11-44-12
SW 28-52-23 NW 30-49-21 NE 6-48-18 NE 7-46-15 NE 2-44-12
NW 21-52-23 NE 21-49-21 NW 5-48-18 NW 8-46-15 NW 1-44-12
SW 21-52-23 SW 21-49-21 NE 5-48-18 SE 8-46-15 SW 1-44-12
NW 16-52-23 SE 21-49-21 SE 5-48-18 SW 9-46-15 NW 31-43-11
SW 16-52-23 SW 22-49-21 SW 4-48-18 SE 9-46-15 NE 31-43-11

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
NW 9-52-23 NW 15-49-21 SE 4-48-18 NE 4-46-15 NW 32-43-11
SW 9-52-23 NE 15-49-21 NE 33-47-18 SW 3-46-15 SW 32-43-11
NW 4-52-23 NW 14-49-21 NW 34-47-18 NW 35-45-15 SE 32-43-11
SW 4-52-23 SE 15-49-21 SW 34-47-18 NE 35-45-15 NE 29-43-11
NW 33-51-23 NE 12-49-21 SW 35-47-18 NW 36-45-15 NW 28-43-11
NW 34-51-23 SW 12-49-21 NW 26-47-18 SW 36-45-15 NE 28-43-11
SW 34-51-23 SW 7-49-20 NW 25-47-18 SE 36-45-15 SE 28-43-11
SE 34-51-23 NW 6-49-20 SW 25-47-18 NW 30-45-14 SW 27-43-11
SW 35-51-23 SE 5-49-20 SE 25-47-18 NE 30-45-14 SE 27-43-11
SE 36-51-23 NE 32-48-20 NE 24-47-18 SE 30-45-14 NE 22-43-11
SW 31-51-22 NW 33-48-20 SE 19-47-17 SW 29-45-14 NE 23-43-11
NW 30-51-22 NE 33-48-20 SW 20-47-17 SE 29-45-14 SW 24-43-11
SW 30-51-22 SE 33-48-20 NE 16-47-17 NE 20-45-14 NW 13-43-11
NW 19-51-22 SW 34-48-20 SE 16-47-17 NW 21-45-14 NE 13-43-11
NE 19-51-22 SE 34-48-20 SE 15-47-17 NE 15-45-14 NW 18-43-10
NE 18-51-22 NE 27-48-20 NE 10-47-17 SW 14-45-14 SW 18-43-10
NW 17-51-22 NW 26-48-20 NW 11-47-17 SE 14-45-14 SE 18-43-10
SW 17-51-22 SW 25-48-20 SW 11-47-17 SW 13-45-14 SW 17-43-10
SE 17-51-22 NE 24-48-20 SE 11-47-17 SE 13-45-14 NE 8-43-10
NE 8-51-22 NW 19-48-19 SW 12-47-17 SW 18-45-13 NW 8-43-10
SE 8-51-22 NE 19-48-19 NW 1-47-17 NW 7-45-13 SE 8-43-10
SW 9-51-22 NW 20-48-19 NE 1-47-17 SW 7-45-13 SW 9-43-10
NW 4-51-22 NE 20-48-19 NW 6-47-16 SE 7-45-13 SE 9-43-10
NE 4-51-22 SE 20-48-19 SW 6-47-16 NE 6-45-13 NE 4-43-10

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
SE 4-51-22 SW 21-48-19 SE 6-47-16 NW 5-45-13 NW 3-43-10
NE 32-50-22 NW 16-48-19 SW 5-47-16 NE 5-45-13 SW 3-43-10
NW 33-50-22 NE 30-49-21 NW 31-46-16 SE 5-45-13 SE 36-42-10
SW 33-50-22 NW 29-49-21 NE 31-46-16 SW 4-45-13 NE 25-42-10
SE 33-50-22 SW 29-49-21 NW 32-46-16 SE 4-45-13 NW 30-42-9
SW 27-50-22 SE 29-49-21 SW 32-46-16 SW 34-44-13 SW 30-42-9
SE 15-50-22 NE 20-49-21 SE 32-46-16 SE 34-44-13 SE 30-42-9
NE 10-50-22 NW 21-49-21 NE 29-46-16 SW 35-44-13
NW 11-50-22 NW 15-48-19 NW 28-46-16 SE 26-44-13
SW 11-50-22 NE 15-48-19 NE 28-46-16 SE 25-44-13
SE 11-50-22 SE 14-48-19 SE 28-46-16 NE 24-44-13
SE 2-50-22 SW 13-48-19 SE 27-46-16 NW 16-44-12
SW 1-50-22 NW 12-48-19 SW 23-46-16 NE 9-44-12

c) The 2013 weed survey results will be provided to the NEB upon completion of the
surveys. The anticipated month for submission to the NEB is October 2013.
d) Mitigative measures intended to reduce or limit the potential introduction or
spread of weeds are presented in Section 6 and Appendix F of the Pipeline EPP
[A3E2Y2 and A3E2Y3, respectively]. It is not anticipated that changes will be
required to the mitigation already presented. The 2013 Weed Survey Report will
include a summary table of locations with weed concerns and, where warranted,
recommendations for cleaning station locations will be presented in this table.
Locations with substantial infestation of Noxious or Prohibited Noxious weeds will
be identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets.
e) The weed survey methodology is based on the purposeful meander pattern
described in the ANPC Guidelines for Rare Plant Surveys in Alberta (ANPC 2012).
f) Prior to construction, a weed survey should be conducted to document what
weeds were present and include photographs of the site (AENV 2003). The weed
survey methodology is based on the purposeful meander pattern described in the
ANPC Guidelines for Rare Plant Surveys in Alberta (ANPC 2012) and was not
designed by TERA.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
g) Each Field Crew Lead that will be conducting the 2013 field survey will be a TERA
reclamation specialist with a minimum one year experience conducting weed
surveys. Reclamation specialists have a broad, interdisciplinary knowledge base in
vegetation, soils, wetlands, reclamation and remediation. Each crew member has a
post-secondary education (i.e., B.Sc., Bachelor of Environmental Science [B.E.S.])
and/or a professional designation (i.e., Agrology Technologist in Training [A.T.T.]
with the Alberta Institute of Agrologists or B.I.T. with the ASPB).
h) The Agricultural Fieldman or Specialist in each county/municipal district will be
contacted to discuss weeds of concern in their respective areas. A summary of the
responses received during this consultation program will be provided in the Weed
Report.

Wetlands
supplemental 2013 wetland evaluation will be the same information collected
during the 2012 wetland evaluation [Appendix 7 of the ESA, A3E3A1]. During the
2013 supplemental wetland surveys, the following information will be gathered at
each wetland to be surveyed.
Wetlands will be geo-referenced using GPS (UTM), legal location was
documented and a site sketch will be prepared.
Wetlands will be photo documented and any existing alterations (e.g., road or
existing pipeline right-of-way) either on or adjacent to the site will be noted.
Wetlands will be classified based on vegetation, hydrology and soils present
(Stewart and Kantrud 1971, National Wetlands Working Group 1988, 1997), and
signs of modification (e.g., beaver and/or human) will be documented.
Dominant vegetation will be recorded (e.g., tree, shrub, herbaceous,
emergent, moss and/or weed species).
Habitat features will be identified (e.g., snags present, browsing evident,
sufficient cover and access to open water) and any wildlife or wildlife sign
observations will be documented.
Comments will be made regarding surface water presence, movement and
depth.
Substrate characteristics, including if the soil had hydric, alkali and/or mineral
properties will be documented.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Wetland health assessments will be conducted on Class III, IV, and V wetlands
as well as shrubby swamp wetlands with Class III typical understory vegetation
based on wetland ecological status, community structure and site stability, as well
as flood control and water use. A wetland health assessment will not be conducted
at Class I or II wetlands due to the ephemeral and abundant nature of these
wetlands.
Wetland function and health will be evaluated at each wetland, which is
reported on the premise that disturbed wetlands will be revisited as per the Post-
Construction Environmental Monitoring recommendations in Section 9 of the ESA
[A3E2Y1] to document the progress of functionality returning to the wetland system
after temporary disturbance from pipeline construction.
b) Wetland surveys are anticipated to commence in May 2013. All locations
including route realignments, shoo-flies and temporary workspace, which were not
accessed during the 2012 wetland surveys will be targeted. Potential wetlands have
been identified using satellite photograph interpretation as well as a photograph
and video logs from previous years on adjacent Enbridge rights-of-way. See Table 4
for a list of locations to be surveyed in 2013.
TABLE 4

2013 SUPPLEMENTAL WETLAND SURVEY LOCATIONS
NW 32-52-23 SW 11-50-22 NW 25-47-18 NE 24-44-13
NE 32-52-23 SE 11-50-22 NE 24-47-18 NW 19-44-12
SW 33-52-23 NW 36-49-22 NW 19-47-17 SW 19-44-12
SW 28-52-23 NE 36-49-22 NE 19-47-17 SE 19-44-12
NW 21-52-23 SW 31-49-21 SW 20-47-17 NE 10-44-12
SW 21-52-23 NW 15-49-21 NW 16-47-17 SW 11-44-12
NW 9-52-23 NE 15-49-21 SE 16-47-17 NW 1-44-12
SW 9-52-23 SE 14-49-21 SW 15-47-17 SW 1-44-12
NW 4-52-23 NW 12-49-21 SE 15-47-17 SE 1-44-12
SW 4-52-23 SE 12-49-21 NE 10-47-17 SW 6-44-11
NW 33-51-23 NW 6-49-20 NW 11-47-17 NW 28-43-11

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
NE 33-51-23 NW 5-49-20 NW 1-47-17 SE 28-43-11
SW 34-51-23 SW 5-49-20 NE 1-47-17 NE 22-43-11
SE 34-51-23 SE 5-49-20 SW 32-46-16 NW 23-43-11
SW 35-51-23 NE 33-48-20 SE 32-46-16 SW 18-43-10
SE 35-51-23 SE 33-48-20 NW 28-46-16 NE 8-43-10
SW 36-51-23 SW 34-48-20 NE 28-46-16 NW 8-43-10
SE 36-51-23 SE 34-48-20 SE 28-46-16 SE 8-43-10
SW 31-51-22 NE 27-48-20 SW 27-46-16 SE 9-43-10
NW 30-51-22 NW 26-48-20 NE 22-46-16 NE 4-43-10
SW 30-51-22 NE 26-48-20 NW 23-46-16 NW 3-43-10
NW 19-51-22 NE 24-48-20 SE 23-46-16 SW 3-43-10
NE 19-51-22 NW 19-48-19 NW 13-46-16 SE 3-43-10
SE 19-51-22 NE 19-48-19 NE 13-46-16 SW 2-43-10
NE 18-51-22 NW 20-48-19 SW 18-46-15 NW 35-42-10
NW 17-51-22 NE 30-49-21 SE 18-46-15 SW 36-42-10
SW 17-51-22 SE 29-49-21 NE 7-46-15 SE 30-42-9
NE 8-51-22 NE 20-49-21 SE 8-46-15
SE 8-51-22 NW 21-49-21 SE 9-46-15
SW 9-51-22 NW 15-48-19 SW 36-45-15
NW 4-51-22 NE 15-48-19 NE 20-45-14
NE 4-51-22 SE 15-48-19 NW 21-45-14
SE 4-51-22 SW 14-48-19 SE 14-45-14
NE 32-50-22 SW 13-48-19 SW 13-45-14
NW 33-50-22 NW 12-48-19 SE 13-45-14

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
SW 33-50-22 NE 12-48-19 SW 18-45-13
SE 33-50-22 SE 12-48-19 NW 7-45-13
NE 28-50-22 SW 7-48-18 SE 7-45-13
SE 28-50-22 NW 5-48-18 NE 6-45-13
SW 27-50-22 NE 5-48-18 SW 4-45-13
NW 22-50-22 SE 5-48-18 NE 33-44-13
SE 22-50-22 SW 4-48-18 SE 34-44-13
NE 15-50-22 SE 4-48-18 SW 35-44-13
SE 15-50-22 NE 33-47-18 NE 26-44-13
NE 10-50-22 NW 34-47-18 SW 25-44-13
NW 11-50-22 SW 34-47-18 SE 25-44-13

d) The Environmental Alignment Sheets and Table 4 of the Environmental Alignment
Sheet Package will be updated to identify new wetlands identified during the 2013
survey. Willow staking locations will also be updated to reflect the 2013 survey
results.
e) The supplemental 2013 wetland evaluation methodologies will be the same as
during the 2012 wetland evaluation [Appendix 7 of the ESA, A3E3A1].
f) The wetland health and functional evaluation was modified from Ambrose et al.
(2004) by Senior Environmental Planners in the TERA;s Wetland Discipline. The
Wetland Discipline Manager has over 10 years of experience in wetlands and a
M.Sc. in Hydrology. The Wetland Field Trainer has seven years of experience in
wetlands, holds a B.Sc. and technical diploma in fish and wildlife, and is a P. Biol and
R.P. Bio with the ASPB and the APB, respectively.
g) Each survey crew will consist of two people lead by a wetland specialist. Wetland
specialists have a broad, interdisciplinary knowledge base in vegetation, hydrology,
soils, wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wetland specialists view wetlands as dynamic
landscape systems (i.e., all variables are interrelated) and complete wetland

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
assessments using best professional judgement. The wetland specialists have
varying educational backgrounds, from a technical diploma to a M.Sc., and may be a
B.I.T. with the ASPB. They also have from one to three years of experience with
TERA and up to three years of previous work experience in wetlands.
Writing and reviewing of the Wetland Supplemental Report will be conducted by
the Wetland Discipline Manager, Wetland Field Trainer and a wetland specialist with
a M.Sc. in wetland ecology and three years of wetland experience.
h) TERA participated in a meeting with AESRD via conference call on September 17,
2012 to discuss TERAs wetland evaluation methods outlined in this report. AESRD
did not express concerns with the baseline wetland data capture methods or
baseline wetland study approach presented (Kuchmak pers. comm.).
Enbridge met with Environment Canada on September 17, 2012 and also presented
TERAs wetland evaluation methods. Environment Canada did not express concerns
with the field program design (Gregoire pers. comm.).
AESRD is responsible for administering the Alberta Water Act and has implemented
the following two Code of Practices to regulate watercourse crossing activities
associated with pipelines: Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication
Lines Crossing a Water Body (Alberta Environment [AENV] 2000a); and Code of
Practice for Watercourse Crossings (i.e., for vehicle and equipment crossings) (AENV
2000b). A COP Notification under the Code of Practice for Pipelines and
Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (AENV 2000a) will be submitted for
all wetlands crossed by the pipeline route. Notification will be submitted to AESRD
at least 14 days prior to construction and the appropriate survey plans and/or
figures will be attached. Any activity that will permanently disturb a waterbody
requires Water Act Approval. Permanent disturbances include facility sitings
(e.g., pipeline riser sites and pump stations) or permanent all-weather access roads;
permanent disturbances are also subject to compensation requirements. Water Act
Approval will be applied for if permanent wetland disturbance will occur with
construction of the Project, although permanent disturbance is not anticipated.
Wildlife
a) The information that will be collected at the sites visited during the supplemental
2013 wildlife surveys will be consistent with the information collected during the
2012 wildlife surveys [Appendix 9 of the ESA, A3E3A7].
Supplemental wildlife field work will include breeding bird point count surveys,
yellow rail surveys, visual scans and ground inspections at all surveyed locations to
observe wildlife and wildlife habitats along and immediately adjacent to the
proposed pipeline route. All wildlife observations, evidence of wildlife use and

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
important wildlife habitat features will be recorded during the field work (i.e., field-
data sheets, UTMs taken with a hand-held GPS and photographs for record-
keeping).
During the 2013 wildlife surveys, the following information will be recorded at each
location surveyed:
date;
time start and end;
legal location;
survey location waypoint;
temperature;
maximum wind speed;
cloud cover;
land use;
topography;
vegetation;
existing disturbances and additional site descriptions;
the number and gender, if identifiable, of all mammals, birds, amphibians and
reptiles identified by sight, sound or sign, and
important habitat features.
b) Supplemental wildlife field work will be conducted at the following locations (see
Table 5).
areas that were not able to be surveyed during the 2012 field season due to
incomplete land access;
areas along the proposed pipeline route that were realigned after the July
2012 survey, including areas of native vegetation, treed patches, tame pasture,
treed-pasture, wetlands with open water to support breeding waterfowl and
amphibians, and riparian areas/watercourses; and
proposed shooflies through areas of native vegetation, treed patches, tame
pasture, treed-pasture, wetlands with open water to support breeding waterfowl
and amphibians, and riparian areas/watercourses.
The wildlife field work is anticipated to be conducted in May 2013, which is during
the migratory bird and amphibian breeding season.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
TABLE 5

2013 SUPPLMENTAL WILDLIFE SURVEY LOCATIONS
NE 32-52-23 NE 4-51-22 NE 33-47-18 SE 16-44-12
SE 32-52-23 SE 4-51-22 SW 34-47-18 SE 1-44-12
SW 28-52-23 NE 32-50-22 SE 34-47-18 SE 23-43-11
SW 9-52-23 SE 33-50-22 SW 18-46-15 NE 8-43-10
SE 34-51-23 SE 28-50-22 SW 13-45-14 NW 8-43-10
SW 36-51-23 SW 27-50-22 SE 13-45-14 SE 8-43-10
SE 36-51-23 SE 15-50-22 SW 7-45-13 NE 4-43-10
SW 31-51-22 NE 10-50-22 NE 33-44-13 NW 3-43-10
NW 30-51-22 NE 2-50-22 NW 34-44-13 NE 34-42-10
SW 30-51-22 SE 2-50-22 NE 26-44-13 NE 35-42-10
NW 19-51-22 NW 15-49-21 SE 25-44-13 SW 30-42-9
NE 19-51-22 NE 6-49-20 NW 19-44-12 SE 30-42-9
SE 19-51-22 NW 5-49-20 SW 19-44-12

SW 17-51-22 SW 5-49-20 SE 19-44-12

SE 17-51-22 NW 15-48-19 NW 17-44-12

NW 4-51-22 NW 5-48-18 NE 17-44-12

d) The Pipeline EPP [A3E2Y2] does not include site-specific mitigation for wildlife
species of concern; rather, it is presented in Table 3 of the Environmental Alignment
Sheet Package. If additional wildlife species of concern are documented during the
supplemental surveys, Table 3 of the Environmental Alignment Sheet Package will
be revised to include the new locations and recommended mitigative measures for

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
the species or population. Locations of newly observed wildlife species of concern
will be identified on the applicable Environmental Alignment Sheet(s).e) The same
methods presented in the 2012 Wildlife Report [Appendix 9 of the ESA, A3E3A7] will
be used for the supplemental wildlife field work to be completed in May 2013.
In addition, a nocturnal yellow rail survey will be conducted following the Canadian
Wildlife Service standardized protocol for the survey of Yellow Rails in the Prairie and
Northern Region (Bazin and Baldwin 2007). Nocturnal yellow rail surveys will be
conducted in areas identified as potential yellow rail habitat in Table 3 of the
Wildlife Report [Appendix 9 of the ESA, A3E3A7].
f) The personnel involved in designing the survey methods include:
The Wildlife Discipline Manager has 18 years of experience as a wildlife
biologist, a M.E.Des. in Environmental Science, and is a professional biologist with
the ASPB and the APB.
A Wildlife Biologist with 12 years of experience as a wildlife biologist, with a
M.Sc. in Zoology, and is a professional biologist with the ASPB.
g) The Field Crew Lead who will be conducting the supplemental 2013 wildlife
surveys was one of the TERA crew members who conducted the July 2012 wildlife
surveys for this Project. The Field Crew Lead has five years of experience conducting
wildlife surveys, completed a B.Sc. degree in Ecology and Environmental Science, is
currently completing a M.Sc. degree in Environmental Sciences, and is a B.I.T. with
the ASPB. The Field Crew Member has six years of experience conducting wildlife
surveys, and has a M.Sc. in Biology.
h) TERAs standard baseline survey methods have been previously discussed with
federal (i.e., Environment Canada) and provincial (i.e., AESRD) agencies. Since the
field methods used for this Project do not deviate from the standard baseline survey
methods, no project-specific consultation on baseline survey methods was deemed
warranted. The methods follow the Sensitive Species Inventory Guidelines provided
by the provincial government. Results of the wildlife surveys will be submitted to
the AESRD Fisheries and Wildlife Information Management System (FWMIS) as per
the FWMIS data sharing agreement.
REFERENCES
Personal Communications
Gregoire, P. Senior Wildlife Biologist, Environment Canada. Edmonton, Alberta.
Kuchmak, L. Water Authorizations. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development. Edmonton, Alberta.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Literature Cited
Alberta Environment. 2000a. Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication
Lines Crossing a Water Body. Includes Amendments to February 2007. Government
of Alberta. 26 pp.
Alberta Environment. 2000b. Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Includes
Amendments to February 2007. Government of Alberta. 26 pp.
Alberta Environment. 2000c. Guide to the Code of Practice for Watercourse
Crossings, Including Guidelines for Complying with the Code of Practice. 29pp.
Revised April 2001. Government of Alberta.
Alberta Environment. 2000d. Guide to the Code of Practice for Pipeline and
Telecommunication Lines, Including Guidelines for Complying with the Code of
Practice. 16pp. Revised April 2001. Government of Alberta.
Alberta Environment. 2003. R&R/03-4. Weeds on Industrial Development Sites:
Regulations and Guidelines. Website:
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5929.pdf.

Alberta Native Plant Council. 2012. ANPC Guidelines for Rare Vascular Plant Surveys
in Alberta 2012 Update. April 2012. Alberta Native Plant Council. Edmonton, AB.
25 pp. Website:
http://www.anpc.ab.ca/content/newsfiles/Guidelines%20For%20Rare%20Plant%20
Surveys%20in%20AB_2012%20Update.pdf. Accessed: April 2013.
Alberta Pipeline Environmental Steering Committee. 1996. Guidelines for Alternate
Soil Handling Procedures During Pipeline Construction. Prepared for Soil Handling
Sub-Committee of the APESC. Prepared by W.W. Pettapiece and M.W. Dell. June,
1996.
Alberta Soils Advisory Committee. 1987. Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance
and Reclamation. Prepared by the Soil Quality Criteria Working Group. Alberta
Agriculture.
Alberta Transportation. 2001. Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines and Procedures for
Watercourse Crossings in Alberta. Revised August 2009. Government of Alberta.
Ambrose, N., G. Ehlert and K. Spicer-Rawe. 2004. Riparian Health Assessment for
Lakes, Sloughs and Wetlands Field Workbook. Modified from Fitch, L., B.W. Adams,
and G. Hale, 2001. Riparian Health Assessment for Streams and Small Rivers Field
Workbook. Lethbridge, Alberta. Cows and Fish Program. 90 pp.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02
Archaeological Survey of Alberta. 1989. Guidelines for Archaeological Permit
Holders in Alberta. Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Historical Resources Division,
Alberta Culture and Multiculturalism. Edmonton.
Bain, M. and N. Stevenson. 1999. Common Methods: Aquatic Habitat Assessment.
American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland.
Bazin, R. and F.B. Baldwin. 2007. Canadian Wildlife Service standardized protocol for
the survey of Yellow Rails in the Prairie and Northern Region. Environment Canada.
Winnipeg, MB.
Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielson, R.A. Palmason and L.E. Grove. 1982. A system of naming
habitat types in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids
during low streamflow. 62-73 pp in Armantrout, New Brunswick (ed.). Acquisition
and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Information. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Luttmerding, H.A., D.A. Demarchi, E.C. Lea, D.V. Meidinger and T. Vold. (editors).
1990. Describing Ecosystems in the Field. 2nd Edition. B.C. Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks and B.C. Ministry of Forestry. Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
Manual 11. Victoria, British Columbia.
National Wetland Working Group. 1988. Wetlands of Canada. Ecological Land
Classification Series, No. 24. Sustainable Development Branch, Environment Canada.
Ottawa, Ontario and Polyscience Publications Inc., Montreal, Quebec. 452 pp.
National Wetland Working Group. 1997. The Canadian wetland classification
system. Edited by B.G. Warner and C.D.A. Rubec. Wetlands Research Centre,
University of Waterloo. Waterloo, Ontario.
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.
Transport Canada. 2010. Minor Waters Users Guide. Minor Works and Waters
(Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order. TP 14838E (03/2010). TC 1002965 (T29-
60/2009E PDF). Ministry of Transport.

OF-FAC-Oil-101-2012-08 02

B4-2 - Response To NEB Information Response No 1 - Edmonton To Hardisty Pipeline Project - A3H2W1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

B4-2 - Response To NEB Information Response No 1 - Edmonton To Hardisty Pipeline Project - A3H2W1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

Application for Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project

You might also like