DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING REPORT Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act)

Alberta Clipper Expansion Project

Applicants: Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

Application Date: 30 May 2007 CEA Act Registration Date: 2 November 2006 (Preliminary Information Package: 24 October 2006)

National Energy OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2007-03 01 Canadian Environmental Board File Numbers: OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2006-04 01 Assessment Registry Number: 06-01-23153

CEA Act Law List Section 52 of the National Energy CEA Act Determination Date: n/a Trigger: Board Act

SCREENING SUMMARY

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) is proposing to construct and operate the Alberta Clipper Expansion Project which, in Canada, would include approximately 1 078 kilometres of new 914 millimetre (36-inch) outside diameter crude oil pipeline between Hardisty, Alberta and the Canada – United States border near Gretna, Manitoba. In addition, new pump units would be installed at eight existing pump stations, one new pump station would be constructed near Regina, Saskatchewan, and receipt tankage, booster pump units and other facilities would be installed at the Hardisty Terminal.

The National Energy Board (NEB) is the Federal Environment Assessment Coordinator for this Project. Transport Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada have declared themselves as Responsible Authorities. Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada have identified themselves as Federal Authorities in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge. Saskatchewan Environment, Manitoba Conservation and Alberta Environment also participated in the environmental assessment process.

A number of potential adverse environmental effects of the Project, both bio-physical and socio- economic, were identified. Issues of public concern mainly focused on reduced soil capability and the potential effects resulting from an accidental product release from the proposed pipeline.

The NEB has considered information provided by Enbridge, government departments and the public during its review of the Project. The NEB is of the view that, with the implementation of Enbridge’s environmental protection procedures and mitigation measures, and the NEB’s recommendations, the Alberta Clipper Expansion Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Project Overview...... 1 1.2 Information Sources Used in this Environmental Screening Report...... 1

2.0 RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT...... 1

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 2 3.1 Government Participation in the Environmental Assessment Process ...... 2 3.1.1 Feedback from the Public, Including Government Agencies and Aboriginal Groups ...... 2 3.1.2 Draft Scope of the EA...... 3 3.1.3 NEB Hearing...... 3

4.0 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 3

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...... 3 5.1 Construction Phase...... 4 5.2 Operations Phase...... 5 5.3 Abandonment Phase...... 5

6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT...... 7 6.1 Pipeline Route...... 7 6.2 Existing Pump Stations/Terminals...... 12 6.3 Rowatt Pump Station ...... 13 6.4 Expansion Lands at the Hardisty Terminal...... 13

7.0 COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT ...... 14 7.1 Project-Related Issues Raised Through Consultation Conducted by Enbridge...... 14 7.2 Project-Related Issues Raised in Comments Received by the NEB...... 14

8.0 THE NEB’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 15

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS...... 15 9.1 Pipeline Routing and Pump Station Site Selection...... 15 9.2 Project – Environment Interactions ...... 18 9.3 Potential Adverse Environmental Effects...... 21 9.3.1 Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects to be Mitigated through Standard Measures...... 22 9.3.1.1 Analysis...... 22

i Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

9.3.1.2 Views of the Board ...... 24 9.3.2 Detailed Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects...... 25 9.3.2.1 Potential Effects on Agricultural Soil Capability ...... 25 9.3.2.2 Native Prairie: Potential Effects and Reclamation...... 28 9.3.2.3 Disruption or Inability to Carry on Traditional Activities...... 31 9.3.2.4 Air Quality in the Vicinity of the Hardisty Terminal ...... 33 9.3.2.5 Potential Effects on Wetlands and Aquifers Caused by an Accident or Malfunction of the Pipeline...... 35 9.3.2.6 Potential Effects on the South Saskatchewan River Caused by an Accident or Malfunction of the Pipeline ...... 37 9.4 Inspection...... 39 9.5 Cumulative Effects Assessment...... 40 9.5.1 Other Projects Interacting with the Alberta Clipper Expansion Project ...... 40 9.5.2 Potential Cumulative Effects ...... 40 9.5.3 Enbridge’s Conclusion...... 42 9.5.4 Views of the Board ...... 42 9.6 Follow-Up Program...... 43 9.7 Recommendations...... 43

10.0 THE NEB’S CONCLUSION ...... 46

11.0 NEB CONTACT ...... 47

APPENDIX 1 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (AS DETERMINED IN JUNE 2007) ...... 48

APPENDIX 2 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA DEFINITIONS ...... 54

ii Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AB Alberta AE Alberta Environment AEUB Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Agreement Settlement Agreement between Enbridge Pipelines Inc. and the Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association / Saskatchewan Association of Pipeline Landowners BATC Battleford Agency Tribal Chiefs Inc. Board or NEB National Energy Board CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEA Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA environmental assessment EC Environment Canada ERCB Energy Resources Conservation Board Enbridge Enbridge Pipelines Inc. EPP Environmental Protection Plan EPR Program Emergency Preparedness and Response Program ESR Environmental Screening Report FA(s) Federal Authority(ies), as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act FCN Letter federal coordination notification letter

H2S hydrogen sulphide ha hectare HDD horizontal directional drill IMP Integrity Management Program INAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada km kilometre KP kilometre post LSr Pipeline Enbridge Pipelines Inc.’s light sour crude oil pipeline, proposed as part of the Southern Lights Project m metre m3 cubic metre MB Manitoba MC Manitoba Conservation mm millimetre MPLA Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association

iii Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

NEB Act National Energy Board Act OD outside diameter OPR-99 Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999 PFRA Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration Pipeline proposed Alberta Clipper Expansion Project crude oil pipeline extending from Hardisty, Alberta, through Saskatchewan to the Canada/United States border near Gretna, Manitoba PPFRA Progress Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Area Project Alberta Clipper Expansion Project RAP restricted activity period RA(s) Responsible Authority(ies), as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Route proposed Alberta Clipper Expansion Project pipeline route RoW right-of-way SAPL Saskatchewan Association of Pipeline Landowners SARA Species at Risk Act Scope scope of the environmental assessment for the Alberta Clipper Expansion Project as determined in June 2007 SE Saskatchewan Environment SIAP Specialized Integrity Assessment Program SK Saskatchewan TC Transport Canada TLE Treaty Land Entitlement US United States

iv Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) currently owns and operates the Canadian portion of a mainline system which transports crude oil and petroleum products from Edmonton, Alberta (AB) to the Canada/United States (US) border near Gretna, Manitoba (MB). The system is comprised of a number of lines within a common right-of-way (RoW) which extend into the US to reach various market locations in the US and Canada. Several existing pump stations occur along this RoW.

Enbridge is proposing to construct and operate the Alberta Clipper Expansion Project (the Project) which, in Canada, would consist of an approximately 1 078 kilometre (km) long, 914 millimetre (mm) (36-inch) outside diameter (OD) crude oil pipeline extending from Hardisty, AB, through Saskatchewan (SK), to the Canada/US border near Gretna. The Project would also involve various installations (including tankage) and modifications at existing pump stations and terminals, and the construction of a new pump station near Regina, SK.

Section 5.0 provides a more detailed description of the work associated with the Project.

Several hundred kilometres of new pipeline construction and other infrastructure are required in the US as part of the Project; however, those works are not considered within the scope of this assessment as they fall under US jurisdiction.

1.2 Information Sources Used in this Environmental Screening Report

This Environmental Screening Report (ESR) is based on information from the following sources: ¾ Project application (Volume I – Application, Volume II – Report on Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment, Volume III – Environmental Alignment Sheets); ¾ supplementary filings to the Project application; ¾ responses to information requests; ¾ various Enbridge manuals referenced in the Project application (e.g., Environmental Guidelines for Construction (December 2003), Waste Management Plan (October 2004)); ¾ submissions from the public and interested parties; and ¾ evidence submitted at the oral public hearing. Filed information pertaining to the Project application can be found within ‘Regulatory Documents’ on the National Energy Board (NEB or Board) website (www.neb-one.gc.ca). For more details on how to obtain documents, please contact the Secretary of the NEB at the address specified in Section 11.0 of this ESR.

2.0 RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT The Project is being proposed in response to requests from western Canadian oil sands producers for increased takeaway capacity to accommodate oil sands development, as well as to supply

1 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

markets in the US Midwest. The Project would have an initial annual capacity of 71 500 cubic metres (m3) (450,000 barrels) per day; however, its design allows for possible expansion to 127 000 m3 (800,000 barrels) per day by adding additional pumping facilities. Such an expansion would require a future application to the Board.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS Enbridge’s application to construct and operate the Project was made pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act), which is identified in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) Law List Regulations, thereby requiring the preparation of this ESR.

3.1 Government Participation in the Environmental Assessment Process The NEB is the Federal Environment Assessment Coordinator for this Project. Upon receipt of a Preliminary Information Package for the Project, in November 2006 the NEB issued a federal coordination notification letter (FCN Letter), pursuant to the Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements, to identify the potential involvement of federal departments in the environmental assessment (EA) process. The responses are summarized below:

Federal Authority (FA) in Federal Department/Agency Responsible Authority (RA) Possession of Specialist or Expert Information or Knowledge Prairie Farm Rehabilitation ● Administration (PFRA) Transport Canada (TC)* ● Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)** ● ● Indian and Northern Affairs Canada ● Environment Canada (EC) ● Natural Resources Canada ● Health Canada ●

* TC stated that the Project may require approvals under subsection 5(1) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Until TC makes that determination it considers itself an RA. ** DFO stated that it would act as both an FA with respect to the broadly-scoped Project as well as an RA with respect to aspects of pipeline construction that would result in a harmful alteration, disruption and/or destruction of fish habitat.

The FCN Letter was also sent to provincial agencies in AB, SK and MB. Saskatchewan Environment (SE), Manitoba Conservation (MC) and Alberta Environment (AE) expressed interest in monitoring or participating in the EA process.

3.1.1 Feedback from the Public, Including Government Agencies and Aboriginal Groups Throughout the course of the EA process, the Board received several submissions pertaining to Project-related EA matters. The areas of primary concern are listed within Section 7.2 of this ESR.

2 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

3.1.2 Draft Scope of the EA In April 2007, the NEB solicited comments from RAs, FAs and provincial agencies on the draft scope of the EA for the Project. Further, in May 2007, pursuant to subsection 18(3) of the CEA Act, the NEB conducted a public comment exercise on the draft scope of the EA, which included posting a public participation notice on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.

3.1.3 NEB Hearing The public oral hearing for the Project, pursuant to Hearing Order OH-4-2007, was held on the following dates in 2007: 5-6 November in Calgary, 19-20 November in Regina and 26 November in Calgary.

4.0 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Scope of the EA (the Scope) is composed of three components:

1. Scope of the Project; 2. Factors to be Considered; and 3. Scope of the Factors to be Considered.

The Scope, as determined by the RAs in consultation with the FAs and the public, is included in Appendix 1 of this ESR and provides detailed information on these three components.

For clarification purposes, DFO stated that it would not be commenting on the proposed broad scope of the project and would instead identify a scope of project that meets its responsibilities pursuant to the Fisheries Act and the CEA Act and that directly relates to effects to fish and fish habitat resulting from construction of the proposed pipeline. DFO also stated that it would undertake a screening level assessment pursuant to the CEA Act and that the scope of project for the purposes of its assessment would be associated with the waterbody crossings where Authorizations pursuant to the Fisheries Act are necessary.

For this Project, the term ‘alternative means’, as mentioned in Section 2.2 of the Scope, primarily refers to alternative routing options for the proposed pipeline and site selection for the proposed new pump station. These routing options are discussed in Section 9.1 of this ESR. Alternative construction methodologies (e.g., at watercourse crossings) are also considered within the context of alternative means.

Section 2.1 of the Scope, entitled Scope of the Project, is expanded upon in more detail in Section 5.0 of this ESR. Section 5.0 also incorporates any updates and revisions made to the Project by Enbridge since the Scope was determined in June 2007.

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 provide information for each phase of the Project: construction, operations and abandonment. Map 1 identifies the geographic locations of the involved facilities.

3 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

5.1 Construction Phase

Physical Works and/or Activities

Timeframe: Beginning in summer 2008

New pipeline and associated infrastructure

ƒ Construction of an approximately 1 078 km long, 914 mm (36-inch) OD crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, AB, through SK, to the Canada/US border near Gretna, MB (the Pipeline). ƒ The Pipeline would be located within or alongside existing RoWs (Enbridge’s or others’) for approximately 98 percent of its length. ƒ Approximately 44 km of new, non-contiguous RoW (i.e., not adjacent to existing RoWs) is required and would consist of over 30 segments which deviate from existing RoW (see Section 9.1 for information on these segments). ƒ Additional temporary workspace would be required at the various crossings, side bends, tie-ins and areas where heavy grading is needed. ƒ 45 fenced and graveled valve sites are required along the Pipeline and would be built within the Pipeline RoW or at existing facility sites. ƒ Scraper traps would be installed on the Pipeline at the existing Hardisty and Cromer Terminals, Kerrobert and Gretna Pump Stations and the proposed Rowatt Pump Station. ƒ The Pipeline would cross numerous watercourses (including navigable watercourses) using various techniques: isolated (e.g., dam and pump, flume), open cut, bore, horizontal directional drill (HDD). ƒ The Pipeline would cross below several existing highways, roads, railway lines, foreign pipelines and utility lines; generally, paved roads and railways would be bored while foreign lines would be bored or open cut.

New pump station

ƒ Construction of a new pump station at SW 33-16-19 W2M / NW 28-16-19 W2M near Rowatt, SK (south of Regina) on a 100 metre (m) x 100 m plot within a 200 m x 200 m fenced site.

Existing pump stations/terminals

ƒ Installation of new electrically-driven pump units at eight existing pump stations/terminals (Hardisty and Cromer Terminals, Kerrobert, Milden, Craik, Glenavon, Glenboro and Gretna Stations); no new lands are required for these installations. ƒ Installation of various instrumentation and controls for each of the pumping facilities. ƒ Installation of electrical services buildings (approximately 10 m x 15 m) at each pump station to house pump motors, electrical equipment and other instrumentation.

New tankage at the Hardisty Terminal

ƒ Installation of six oil storage tanks, each having a 39 750 m3 (250,000 barrel) nominal capacity. ƒ Installation of booster pump units, piping, metering, electrical services building, leak detection and a new manifold. ƒ Modifications to existing infrastructure to accommodate the tanks: secondary containment, access roads, fire protection systems, manifolds, site drainage. ƒ The terminal would be expanded onto 16.8 hectares (ha) of land already owned by Enbridge and would be fenced.

Other works and activities

ƒ Required activities include clearing, slash burning, grading, excavation, backfilling, pressure testing, cleanup and reclamation. ƒ Where necessary, temporary bridges would be installed in accordance with applicable regulations and guidelines. ƒ Enbridge would maximize the use of existing roads; road upgrading may be required in some areas. ƒ Other required temporary facilities: equipment storage yards, stockpile sites, staging areas, access roads, construction offices and a construction camp near Hardisty. ƒ All in-field hydrostatic tests would use water drawn from approved water sources (natural and manmade) or would be rented water; after use, fluids would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

4 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

5.2 Operations Phase The proposed Pipeline and associated infrastructure, all pumps and two tanks are estimated to be in service by July 2010. The remaining tanks at the Hardisty Terminal would be phased in, with completion dates ranging up to December 2012. The expected duration of the operations phase of the Project is 50+ years.

The following outlines various activities related to the operations phase of the Project:

ƒ Regular aerial and ground line patrols along the RoW to inspect for environmental monitoring issues, product releases, damage to pipe or permanent erosion control structures, RoW encroachments, exposed pipe, erosion/wash-out areas and sparse vegetation. Pipeline markers and signs would also be inspected. ƒ Running of regular in-line inspection tools to identify Pipeline integrity problems. ƒ Maintenance digs, including monitoring for appropriate depth of cover, and repairs would be performed as needed. ƒ Cathodic protection of the Pipeline and tanks to combat external corrosion. ƒ Periodic cutting back of vegetation along the RoW and at permanent facilities. ƒ Occasional addition of gravel on access roads and at permanent facilities. ƒ Permanent facilities would be inspected regularly and scraper traps would be inspected at least once per week. ƒ No increase in air emissions would be associated with the Project, once operational, although an increase in odours may result during operation of the tanks at the Hardisty Terminal. ƒ Leak detection and prevention for the proposed oil storage tanks would include maintaining accurate inventory records, manual inspections of the collection basin, monthly visual inspections and, at least every five years, a certified inspector would conduct an external inspection. ƒ All stations and terminals would be in compliance with the requirements of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board’s (AEUB’s) Noise Directive 0381.

5.3 Abandonment Phase At the end of the service life of the Project, an application pursuant to paragraph 74(1)(d) of the NEB Act would be required for its abandonment, at which time the environmental effects of the proposed abandonment activities would be assessed by the NEB under both the NEB Act and the CEA Act.

1 Effective 1 January 2008, the AEUB was realigned into two separate regulatory bodies, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), which regulates the energy industry, and the Alberta Utilities Commission, which regulates the utilities industry. Consequently, the title of this Directive has been changed to "ERCB Directive 038: Noise Control”

5 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Map 1

6 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Pipeline Route This section describes the environmental and socio-economic setting along the proposed approximately 1 078 km long Pipeline route extending from Hardisty, AB, through SK, to the Canada/US border near Gretna, MB (the Route). This description is also applicable to the various valve locations along the Pipeline as these sites would be located within the Pipeline RoW.

Locations along the existing Enbridge RoW may be referred to by kilometre post (KP) where KP 176.0 is located at Hardisty and KP 1245.2 is located at the Canada/US border.

The description of the environment is based on information submitted by Enbridge, which, in turn, is based on a number of sources, including: ƒ literature reviews; ƒ consultation with government agencies and departments; ƒ field studies performed along the existing Enbridge system as part of its Capacity Expansion Program, System Expansion Program Phase II and Terrace Phase I and II Expansion Programs, and along other RoWs to be paralleled (e.g., Alliance Pipeline Ltd., TransCanada PipeLines Ltd.), pertaining to soils, fish and fish habitat, wildlife, vegetation and heritage resources, and which date back to the 1990s; ƒ field studies (done mainly in 2006) in areas: o where Route segments did not form part of Terrace Phase I; o of known habitat importance in the vicinity of the Route in MB, based on the results of studies completed for Terrace Phase I; and ƒ other detailed studies conducted in 2007 related to a number of disciplines such as fish and fish habitat, bivalves, wetlands, vegetation and wildlife and wildlife habitat, for those areas where there were known knowledge gaps from previous field work.

The spatial extent of the detailed field surveys varied depending on the discipline. For example, wildlife and wildlife habitat surveys were conducted along segments of the proposed Route that traverse native vegetation such as native prairie, bush and bush-pasture greater than 100 m in length, soil surveys were undertaken on previously non-surveyed areas, and weed surveys were performed over virtually the full length of Route.

Enbridge stated that the objectives of its field surveys included identifying species or issues, developing habitat descriptions and assisting with the development of mitigation measures.

As Enbridge was not able to access all areas for the detailed surveys in 2007, it has committed to undertake surveys in 2008 and has stated that it would complete and submit the survey results to the NEB and other appropriate agencies prior to construction. Regarding some surveys such as the late summer rare plant surveys, Enbridge stated that the results would be submitted to the NEB and appropriate agencies 10 days prior to construction in those areas where the surveys were performed. Areas requiring late summer rare plant surveys to be conducted in 2008 total approximately 10 km of the Route.

7 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Terrain and Soils

ƒ The Route generally traverses flat to gently rolling terrain; however, moderate to steep slopes are encountered at the valleys associated with some watercourse crossings. ƒ Bedrock is not expected to be encountered along the Route, except possibly at lower elevations in river and stream valleys; no acid-generating bedrock is located along the Route. ƒ Much of the Route traverses clay-textured soils prone to rutting and compaction during moist conditions; coarse-textured soils are also common along some segments and are prone to trench sloughing and wind erosion and may be difficult to revegetate during dry conditions. ƒ Approximately 25 percent of the Route in SK, 5.2 percent of the Route in MB and 8.5 percent of the Route in AB crosses saline or sodic soils. ƒ Protective Notations2 occur in AB from KP 195.9 to KP 196.8 (erosion hazard), KP 196.8 to KP 197.7 (erosion hazard), KP 220.4 to KP 220.6 (wind erosion hazard), KP 227.1 (wind erosion hazard) and KP 233.7 (rough topography). ƒ Contaminated soil may be found along the Route resulting from past farming activities and releases of oil and salt/produced water (from various sources); the Route does not traverse any sites listed on the Federal Contaminated Sites and Solid Waste Landfills Inventory, although the Route does traverse two landfills (at KP 365.4 in SK and KP 1245.1 in MB); see Section 9.3.1.1, under the heading ‘Discovery of existing contaminated soils’, for details on this issue.

Vegetation

ƒ Approximately 390 ha of native vegetation (220 ha native prairie, 170 ha bush and bush pasture) would be altered during construction of the Pipeline. ƒ Most lands along the Route have been broken or cleared for agricultural purposes; remnant native vegetation along the Route is located along sections not suitable for farming and ranges from fescue grasslands to trembling aspen and/or bur oak forests. ƒ Several ornamental trees, shelterbelts and windbreaks occur along the Route. ƒ Through consultation, leafy spurge has been identified as a weed of concern in all three provinces; other weeds of varying concern include scentless chamomile, milkweed, creeping (Canada) thistle, kochia, dandelion, nodding thistle, foxtail barley, stork’s bill, toadflax, Russian knapweed, field bindweed, absinth, common tansy, spotted knapweed. ƒ Six noxious weed species were noted in AB, 20 in SK, and over 70 in MB during the 2007 weed survey.

2 In AB, Protective Notations are placed by public agencies in consultation with the public land manager and identify land and resources that are managed to achieve particular land use or conservation objectives.

8 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Watercourses

ƒ A total of 93 watercourses are crossed by the Route; in addition, 44 drainages with undefined channels and limited fisheries value were identified along the Route. ƒ In AB, the Route crosses two named watercourses (Ribstone and Eyehill Creeks); Macklin is located 12 km downstream of the Eyehill Creek crossing and uses the creek as a water source. ƒ In SK, the Route crosses 49 watercourses with defined bed and banks (among these: Eyehill Creek, Eagle Creek, MacDonald Creek, South Saskatchewan River, Iskwao Creek, Wascana Creek, Qu’Appelle River, Cottonwood Creek); the Town of Outlook and the City of Saskatoon are located downstream of the South Saskatchewan River crossing and both use the river as a municipal water source. ƒ In MB, the Route crosses 30 watercourses with defined beds and banks (among these: Souris River, Oak Creek, Cypress River, Mary Jane Creek, Deadhorse Creek). ƒ For past construction projects along the existing RoW, six watercourses were deemed to be navigable (Eagle Creek, South Saskatchewan River, Qu’Appelle River, Wascana Creek, Chapleau Lake, Souris River).

Aquifers and Water Wells

ƒ Hundreds of water wells occur in the quarter sections crossed by the Route. ƒ The Route crosses over numerous aquifers (e.g., sand, gravel, bedrock) in all three provinces. ƒ Three aquifers with aquifer management plans are crossed in MB (Oak Lake: KP 975.0 to KP 1034.0, Assiniboine Delta: KP 1080.0 to KP 1110.0, Winkler: KP 1207.0 to KP 1219.0); however, no mitigation recommendations within those plans apply to pipeline construction. ƒ Concern was raised to Enbridge regarding Pipeline construction over an aquifer near the Swan Lake Indian Reserve No. 7 at KP 1119.0 to KP 1142.0 in MB.

Fish and Fish Habitat

ƒ In past samplings of watercourses crossed by the Pipeline in all three provinces, a total of 26 fish species (including four sport fish) were found near the crossing locations; an additional 40 species may be present in the watercourses crossed. ƒ The South Saskatchewan River has no spawning habitat within 100 m of the crossing location and no sensitive or nursery habitat is present within 5 km downstream. ƒ The Qu’Appelle River crossing location supports marginal spawning habitat for northern pike and bigmouth buffalo. ƒ The Souris River has low to moderate spawning habitat in the vicinity of the proposed crossing.

9 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Wetlands

ƒ The Route traverses approximately 260 km of wetland habitat. ƒ The Route traverses the Continental Prairie Wetland Region (also referred to as the Prairie Pothole Region) where common wetlands are marshes and shallow waters; this area is described as being one of the most important wetland regions in the world as an estimated 50-75 percent of all North American waterfowl come from this region in any given year.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

ƒ The Route traverses several migratory bird habitat sub-regions with varying significance for migratory birds; the migratory bird restricted activity period (RAP) along the majority of the Route extends from 1 April to 31 July. ƒ The various eco-regions crossed by the Route provide valuable breeding habitat for waterfowl and represent habitat for black bear, moose, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, coyote, rabbit, snowshoe hare, cottontail, beaver, red fox, northern pocket gopher, Franklin’s ground squirrel, short-horned lizard, western rattlesnake and bird species like sharp tailed grouse, sage grouse, ruffed grouse and black-billed magpie. ƒ Construction of the Pipeline would alter approximately 607 ha of wildlife habitat (generally coinciding with areas of native vegetation) including habitat within Ducks Unlimited project areas, Conservation Agreements, North American Waterfowl Management Plan priority areas, three PFRA community pastures, Wildlife Habitat Protection Act lands, Kendal Game Preserve lands and Fish and Game Development Fund areas. ƒ In AB, the Route traverses the Sounding-Sunken Environmentally Significant Area (one of the most productive shorebird staging areas in Canada) from 217.4 to KP 230.9; the Hansman Lake Important Bird Area, which supports 10,000 to 30,000 migrating white geese each fall, is 800 m north of KP 240.0 to KP 242.5. ƒ In SK, the Route lies within 192 m and 265 m, respectively, of the Cosine Lake and Shallow Lake Migratory Bird Concentration Sites. ƒ In MB, the Route traverses the Oak Lake/Plum Lakes Important Bird Area from KP 987 to KP 1004 and a Game Bird Refuge from KP 985 to KP 990.

Species at Risk (listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA)

ƒ The Route lies within the range of the following 20 species at risk: Wildlife – eastern wolf, grey fox, least bittern, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, piping plover, Sprague’s pipit, long-billed curlew, northern leopard frog, yellow rail, northern prairie skink, peregrine falcon, monarch, Dakota Skipper; Fish – silver chub; Plant – buffalo grass, hairy prairie clover, slender mouse-ear cress, western spiderwort, small white lady’s slipper. ƒ Of the above-noted wildlife species, Sprague’s pipit, northern leopard frog, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew and burrowing owl have been noted in the vicinity of Enbridge’s existing RoW during past surveys.

10 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

ƒ Sprague’s pipit, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, northern leopard frog and monarch were noted in 2007 wildlife and habitat surveys. ƒ No plant species at risk were noted during the 2007 early and late summer rare vegetation surveys in AB or SK; small white lady’s slipper was observed at KP 948.9 in MB. ƒ Cultivated areas along the Route create habitat of limited use to species at risk.

Provincially-Listed Species of Concern (may include species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA)

ƒ Past surveys along the existing RoW have noted the presence of provincially-listed plant species at approximately 45 locations and the presence of provincially-listed wildlife species or their signs at approximately 277 locations. ƒ Provincial databases have records of 34 known rare plant species occurring within 1 km of the Route. ƒ During the 2007 early and late summer rare plant surveys, two species were noted in AB, 12 in SK, and six in MB. ƒ During the 2007 wildlife and habitat surveys, 25 species of concern were observed. ƒ The Route lies within the range of several fish and bivalve species of concern (including maple leaf mussel which is currently being added to Schedule 1 of SARA); however, none of these species have been found in watercourses crossed by the Route during past surveys. ƒ A Consultative Notation3 in AB for a rare native species re-vegetation study enclosure exists at KP 196.7 to KP 197.8 and is managed by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

Air Quality

ƒ Air quality in the vicinity of the Route is generally of high baseline quality due to the predominantly rural setting and absence of substantial sources of emissions.

Human Occupancy and Resource Use

ƒ Lands along the Route have been used as a pipeline corridor since the 1950s and are mostly located on privately-owned lands in agricultural use with some oil and gas activity; some provincial Crown land is traversed in all three provinces. ƒ The Route crosses numerous primary and secondary highways as well as both Canadian Pacific and Canadian National rail lines.

3 In AB, Consultative Notations are used to "flag" an interest in the land (e.g., administrative, planning or land inventory process) by a particular agency. These Notations do not place restrictions on land use, but alert potential applicants to the agency's concern.

11 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

ƒ The Route occurs on lands with various hunting seasons for elk, moose, white-tailed and mule deer, black bear and various game birds; fishing seasons in all three provinces generally range from May through March. ƒ The Route traverses three golf courses.

Heritage Resources

ƒ A number of areas along the Route have been identified as having high potential for containing historical resources, including the Thornhill Burial Mounds. ƒ There are 101 previously recorded heritage resources near the proposed Route, including the Thornhill Burial Mounds and the Herschel Petroglyphs Municipal Heritage Site (there are also tipi rings in the area of the petroglyphs).

Aboriginal People

ƒ Approximately 0.7 km of the Route (from KP 1138.4 to KP 1139.1), which is in hay production, traverses the Swan Lake Indian Reserve No. 7. ƒ The Route traverses lands covered by Treaty No. 1, Treaty No. 2, Treaty No. 4, and Treaty No. 6, as well as traditional territories claimed by Dakota, Cree, and Anishinabe First Nations and Métis communities. ƒ The Sweetgrass, Moosomin and Red Pheasant First Nations and members of the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan stated that they have ongoing traditional use in proximity to the Route, including gathering of plants for traditional and medicinal use. ƒ Red Pheasant First Nation noted that it is still hunting, trapping, gathering and holding ceremonies on its traditional territory in proximity to the Route, with special reference to sites at Sounding Lake, Manitou Lake and Eyehill Creek. ƒ Poundmaker First Nation noted that it continues to exercise its right to hunt in the Progress Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Area (PPFRA), with hunting seasons in spring, fall and winter.

6.2 Existing Pump Stations/Terminals The following description is representative of the eight existing pump stations and terminals where work associated with pump units would be conducted (Hardisty and Cromer Terminals, Kerrobert, Milden, Craik, Glenavon, Glenboro and Gretna Stations). All work would be conducted within the confines of each Enbridge-owned pump station or terminal. ƒ Previously disturbed, fenced industrial sites that are devoid of vegetation and lack topsoil. ƒ The sites are currently sources of ongoing operational noise; the nearest residents range from 200 m away at Kerrobert Station to 1.6 km away at Craik Station. ƒ Air quality in the vicinity of these sites is generally high due to the predominantly rural setting and absence of substantial sources of emissions.

12 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

ƒ The sites lie within the range of various wildlife species at risk; however, provincial databases have no records of these species in the vicinity of the sites, nor do the sites represent suitable habitat for wildlife in general. ƒ Other than at Craik and Glenavon Stations, no watercourses or wetlands are present within 30 m of the sites (sloughs are present near these two stations). ƒ Possible sources of onsite soil contamination include spot spills and leaks that may have occurred during past activities. ƒ Existing groundwater monitoring systems are in place. ƒ Negligible potential for heritage resources.

6.3 Rowatt Pump Station The Rowatt Pump Station would be located at SW 33-16-19 W2M / NW 28-16-19 W2M near Rowatt, SK (1.5 km southeast of Regina) along the Pipeline’s realignment at that location. The following describes the area at the location, and in the vicinity of the proposed station: ƒ Located on privately-owned, cultivated land with the nearest resident being 900 m away. ƒ Air quality in the vicinity of the station site is generally of high quality due to the predominantly rural setting and absence of substantial sources of emissions. ƒ Wildlife characteristic of the area include white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, coyote, rabbit and ground squirrel. ƒ Enbridge submitted that the RAP for migratory birds in the area (1 April to 31 July) does not apply as the cultivated land has low value for nesting birds. ƒ The site lies within the range of various species at risk (mainly birds); however, the cultivated land does not represent suitable habitat for species at risk (plant or wildlife), nor does the Saskatchewan Conservation Data Center indicate any such species occurring in the vicinity. ƒ Several low areas and sloughs surround the site. ƒ Historical resource potential is low due to the current cultivated land use. ƒ There is potential to encounter soil contamination as a result of past farming activities.

6.4 Expansion Lands at the Hardisty Terminal The addition of new tanks at the Hardisty Terminal requires a 16.8 ha expansion of the terminal boundaries onto lands already owned by Enbridge. The following describes those lands and the surrounding area: ƒ Nearest resident is 400 m away. ƒ Lands support native prairie and bush areas as well as hay; approximately 10 ha of native vegetation would be removed; no plant species of concern have been observed at the site. ƒ Patches of leafy spurge, a noxious weed, have been noted recently.

13 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

ƒ Although the lands are considered suitable habitat for various wildlife species, including species at risk, the habitat features also occur throughout the surrounding area and are not considered to be locally unique. ƒ No watercourses or wetlands are located within 30 m of the expansion lands. ƒ There are no known heritage sites at the expansion location.

7.0 COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT

7.1 Project-Related Issues Raised Through Consultation Conducted by Enbridge During the preparation of its Report on Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment for the Project, Enbridge consulted with a number of sources including the general public, landowner associations and federal, provincial and local government agencies. This information contributed to the identification of potential adverse environmental effects, issues of concern and the development of mitigation measures. The majority of issues and questions raised through Enbridge’s consultation efforts were resolved by the company through the course of its application process. Some issues were also raised through submissions directly to the Board. Those issues are included in Section 7.2.

7.2 Project-Related Issues Raised in Comments Received by the NEB Several submissions from the public, landowner associations and various levels of government were received by the Board. These submissions outlined a number of potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project. These effects have been categorized by environmental element as outlined below.

Interested Party Environmental Element of Government Agencies Public (Individuals, Interest (Federal, Provincial, Landowner Associations, Aboriginal Groups Regional, Local) Conservation Groups) Soil and Soil Productivity ● Vegetation ● ● Water Quantity and Quality ● ● Fish and Fish Habitat ● Wetlands ● Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ● Species at Risk or of Concern ● Human Occupancy and ● Resource Use Heritage Resources ● Current Traditional Land and ● Resource Use Human Health ● ● Accidents and Malfunctions ● ●

14 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Interested Party Environmental Element of Government Agencies Public (Individuals, Interest (Federal, Provincial, Landowner Associations, Aboriginal Groups Regional, Local) Conservation Groups) Cumulative Effects ● Routing ● ● Abandonment ●

Information and concerns raised through the submissions have been incorporated within Section 9.0 of this Report.

8.0 THE NEB’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY In assessing the environmental effects of the Project, the NEB used an issue-based approach. Alternative Pipeline routing considerations are discussed in Section 9.1. In its analysis within Section 9.2, the NEB identified interactions expected to occur between the proposed Project activities and the surrounding environmental elements. Also included were the consideration of potential accidents and malfunctions that may occur due to the Project and any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment. If there were no expected element/Project interactions, then no further examination was deemed necessary. Similarly, no further examination was deemed necessary for interactions that would result in positive or neutral potential effects. In circumstances where the potential effect was unknown, it was categorized as a potential adverse environmental effect.

Section 9.3.1 provides an analysis for all potential adverse environmental effects that are normally resolved through the use of standard design or mitigation measures. In Section 9.3.2, the Board has identified certain potential adverse environmental effects for detailed analysis based on public concern, the use of non-standard design or mitigation measures, or the relative importance of the elements in question in the context of this application. Appendix 2 specifies the definitions for criteria used in evaluating significance.

Section 9.4 provides discussion on inspection while Section 9.5 addresses cumulative effects. Section 9.6 addresses follow-up programs and Section 9.7 lists recommendations for any subsequent regulatory approval of the Project.

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS 9.1 Pipeline Routing and Pump Station Site Selection

Four Major Route Realignments

From an environmental perspective, the proposed Route, approximately 98 percent of which parallels the existing Enbridge RoW and other third party RoWs, was influenced by Enbridge’s desire to avoid areas of high environmental sensitivity, to minimize the amount of new land disturbance and to maximize operational efficiency.

15 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

In its application, Enbridge determined that four segments of the Route required deviations away from the existing Enbridge RoW. Enbridge developed alternative routing options for each of these four segments and deemed the following four realignments (most of which involve some paralleling of other existing RoWs) advantageous over other alternatives.

Realignment Reason(s) for Proposed Advantage(s) of Selected Route Alternative Location Realignment Over Other Alternatives Milden, SK ƒ Existing Petro-Canada facility ƒ Avoids sidehill terrain Length: 4.7 km ƒ Limited work space along ƒ Avoids a wetland and difficult crossings of existing Enbridge RoW infrastructure ƒ Crosses infrastructure on cultivated lands, as opposed to native prairie ƒ Least amount of new RoW (1.3 km) Regina, SK ƒ Limited work space along the ƒ Avoids existing land use conflicts and reduces Length: 77.4 km existing Enbridge RoW risk of future conflicts through a greater ƒ Numerous infrastructure separation from the city crossings ƒ Only 2.5 km longer than the existing Enbridge ƒ Adjacent urban land use RoW ƒ No steep slopes encountered Kipling, SK ƒ Existing Enbridge RoW crosses ƒ Avoids existing land use conflicts Length: 8.7 km various recreational lands and ƒ Avoids multiple crossings of Canadian National residential districts Rail line and existing Enbridge RoW Wawanesa, MB ƒ Encroachment on a farm yard ƒ Avoids an area of slope instability Length: 7.9 km and residence

Other Realignments

Subsequent to filing its application, Enbridge identified an additional 28 locations along the Route where realignments are proposed for various reasons including wetland avoidance, spatial constraints caused by existing infrastructure, property encroachments, burial grounds and shelterbelts. These realignments resulted in the requirement of approximately 22.5 km of additional non-contiguous RoW than was originally contemplated; however, the overall proposed length of the Route has increased by only 3.6 km. Individual proposed realignments range in length from tens of meters to approximately 4.5 km.

Enbridge stated that no potential impacts were identified along the proposed realignments which had not been previously addressed in its application. Enbridge further stated that the proposed realignments do not alter the conclusions with respect to the significance of environmental effects.

New Pump Station Location

Due to the realignment near Regina, the use of the existing Regina Station was not possible and selection of a new pump station location was deemed necessary. Three alternatives were contemplated. The proposed Rowatt Pump Station, to be located 3.2 km east of Highway 6 and 1.5 km southeast of Regina, was selected over others due to the negligible amount of new access required, the current land use is cultivated, the site is located adjacent to an existing power line and, for engineering reasons, the site is located within the hydraulics tolerance range.

16 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Views of the Board

The Board is of the view that paralleling the existing Enbridge RoW (and other third party RoWs) as much as possible minimizes potential environmental effects. The Board finds that the proposal to widen an existing pipeline RoW would minimize environmental and socio-economic effects compared to constructing the Pipeline on lands previously undisturbed by pipeline activity. Further, pipeline surveillance and maintenance activities can be conducted more efficiently within a common RoW than for two RoWs that are geographically separated.

Regarding the other route realignments referred to above, the Board is of the view that Enbridge’s proposed routing is appropriate and would likely result in a lesser environmental impact as the realignments would avoid environmentally sensitive areas, address concerns raised by the public or avoid existing structures such as houses, shelterbelts or oil and gas facilities. The Board notes that the subsequent NEB detailed route process could also be used to address outstanding routing issues, where necessary.

With respect to the new pump station, the Board is of the view that the proposed location would also result in lesser effects on the environment as it would involve less new land disturbance (associated with access road and power line construction) than the other alternatives considered by Enbridge.

Should the Project be approved, any further deviations, changes or alterations to the applied-for Route or pump station location would require an application to the NEB.

17 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

9.2 Project – Environment Interactions

Project Type of Proposed Mitigation: Description of Interaction Environmental Element Inter- Potential Potential Adverse Environmental Effect (How, When, Where) Section Section action? Effect(s) 9.3.1 9.3.2 Terrain stability Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Terrain instability X backfilling along the RoW Soil and Soil Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Reduced soils capability (surface/sub-soil Productivity backfilling along the RoW and at pump mixing, soil erosion, saline soils, presence of

stations/terminals stones in sub- and top soil, pulverization,

ƒ Use of construction equipment and compaction, wet conditions) on: vehicles o Non-agricultural lands X o Agricultural lands X ƒ Discovery of existing contaminated soils X Vegetation Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Alteration/disturbance of native prairie X backfilling along the RoW and at pump ƒ Alteration of vegetation important to wildlife X stations/terminals ƒ Introduction/spreading of weeds X ƒ Use of construction equipment and vehicles ƒ Loss of ornamental trees, windbreaks and X shelterbelts Water Quality and Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Alteration of natural drainage patterns X Quantity Bio-Physical backfilling along the RoW and at Craik, ƒ Reduction in surface water quality X Glenavon and Rowatt Pump Stations ƒ Disruption of water well flows X ƒ Hydrostatic test water withdrawal and discharge ƒ Disruption of springs X Fish and Fish Habitat Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Fish mortality and the disturbance or alteration X backfilling at stream crossings along the of fish habitat, resulting from

RoW o Disturbance of riparian vegetation ƒ Use of equipment and vehicles during o Alteration of instream habitat construction and operations o Increased suspended solid concentrations ƒ Hydrostatic test water withdrawal and during instream construction discharge o Blockage of fish movements o Contamination from spills o Test water withdrawal and discharge Legend: Y (Yes); N (No); U (Uncertain); P (Positive); Ntl (Neutral); Adv (Adverse)

18 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Project Type of Proposed Mitigation: Description of Interaction Environmental Element Inter- Potential Potential Adverse Environmental Effect (How, When, Where) Section Section action? Effect(s) 9.3.1 9.3.2 Wetlands Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation, backfilling at Adv ƒ Alteration of wetlands (habitat, hydrologic X stream crossings along the RoW and at and/or water quality functions)

Craik, Glenavon and Rowatt Pump Stations ƒ Use of equipment and vehicles during construction and operations Wildlife and Wildlife Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Alteration of wildlife habitat X Habitat backfilling along the RoW and at pump ƒ Sensory disturbance and/or displacement of X stations/terminals wildlife ƒ Use of equipment and vehicles during ƒ Mortality due to vehicle/wildlife collisions X construction and operations ƒ Mortality due to the physical disturbance of X undiscovered nests, burrows, dens or other localized habitat Species of Concern Y ƒ See ‘Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat’, Adv ƒ See ‘Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat’, X (Provincial, Local) ‘Vegetation’ and ‘Fish and Fish Habitat’ ‘Vegetation’ and ‘Fish and Fish Habitat’ elements above elements above Bio-Physical Species at Risk Y ƒ See ‘Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat’, Adv ƒ Disturbance, alteration of habitat and/or X (Federal) ‘Vegetation’ and ‘Fish and Fish Habitat’ mortality or destruction of species at risk elements above (wildlife, fish and/or vegetation) Air Quality Y Adv ƒ Use of equipment and vehicles during ƒ Increase in air emissions: vehicle and X construction and operations equipment emissions, dust, smoke, trace levels of greenhouse gases ƒ Burning of slash material

ƒ Operations at pumping facilities: space ƒ Reduced air quality in the vicinity of the X heating of buildings, fugitive or process Hardisty Terminal emissions ƒ Vapours from crude oil storage tanks at the Hardisty Terminal Human Occupancy/ Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Disturbance to agricultural and ranching X Resource Use backfilling along the RoW and at the operations Hardisty Terminal and Rowatt Pump ƒ Loss of enjoyment of property caused by noise X Station ƒ Use of equipment and vehicles during construction and operations

Socio-Economic Socio-Economic ƒ Operation of new pump units and the new Rowatt Pump Station

Legend: Y (Yes); N (No); U (Uncertain); P (Positive); Ntl (Neutral); Adv (Adverse)

19 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Project Type of Proposed Mitigation: Description of Interaction Environmental Element Inter- Potential Potential Adverse Environmental Effect (How, When, Where) Section Section action? Effect(s) 9.3.1 9.3.2 Heritage Resources Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Disturbance/destruction of heritage resources X backfilling along the RoW and at the Hardisty Terminal and Rowatt Pump Station Current Traditional Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Loss or alteration of traditional Aboriginal X Land and Resource backfilling along the RoW sites Use by Aboriginal ƒ Use of equipment and vehicles during ƒ Disruption of, or inability to carry on, People construction traditional activities X Socio-Economic Socio-Economic Socio and Cultural N Well-being Human Health/ Y ƒ Vapours from crude oil storage tanks at the Adv ƒ Health effects caused by reduced air quality in X Aesthetics Hardisty Terminal the vicinity of the Hardisty Terminal Accidents/ Y ƒ Clearing, grading, excavation and Adv ƒ Effects on environmental elements (e.g.,soil, backfilling along the RoW and at pump vegetation) from a fire/explosion during Malfunctions X stations/terminals construction or operations

ƒ Rupture of, or damage to, foreign lines, ƒ Minor water or soil contamination X cables, or Enbridge’s existing pipelines ƒ Effects on fish and fish habitat from a release X ƒ Leaks or spills of hazardous materials from of drilling mud equipment and vehicles during construction ƒ Wetland and/or aquifer contamination X and operations ƒ Contamination of the South Saskatchewan X ƒ HDD failure (frac-out) into watercourses River

ƒ Potential crude oil release from a leak or rupture at Rowatt Pump Station or from new tanks at the Hardisty Terminal Other ƒ Potential crude oil release from a leak or rupture of the Pipeline during operations ƒ Potential for fire/explosion during construction or operations Effects of the Y ƒ Slumping Adv ƒ Delay of construction X Environment on the ƒ Flooding ƒ Impacts on the operation of the Project X Project ƒ Wildfires ƒ Damage to infrastructure X ƒ Severe weather

Legend: Y (Yes); N (No); U (Uncertain); P (Positive); Ntl (Neutral); Adv (Adverse)

20 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

9.3 Potential Adverse Environmental Effects To address potential adverse environmental effects, Enbridge has proposed several mitigative strategies to avoid or minimize the effects of the Project including: avoidance through route selection; scheduling of activities to avoid sensitive periods; developing mitigation measures, including contingency plans, to address site-specific and general issues; inspection during construction to ensure mitigation is implemented and effective; and maintenance activities during the operation of the pipeline system. The reader is referred to Enbridge’s application and supporting documentation for details on all the mitigation proposed by the company.

As noted in Section 8.0, the analysis of potential adverse effects has been categorized into two streams: Section 9.3.1- ‘Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects to be Mitigated through Standard Measures’, and Section 9.3.2 – ‘Detailed Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects’. Note that a sub-section entitled ‘Views of the Board’ is provided for each of the environmental effects discussed in Section 9.3.2; whereas, the Views presented in Section 9.3.1 address all remaining potential adverse environmental effects identified in Section 9.2. Both Sections identify recommendations in the event that regulatory approval is granted for the Project.

Field Surveys In its application, Enbridge noted that a number of field surveys would be undertaken in 2007. Subsequently, Enbridge informed the Board that some, or parts, of these surveys could not be completed until 2008, including several that would be conducted close to the start of construction.

Enbridge stated that, for any survey reports that are submitted to the NEB after the filing of its Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), which is discussed in Section 9.4, it has mechanisms in place to ensure that updated information from these surveys would be communicated to the appropriate staff in the field. Enbridge also stated that applicable federal and provincial agencies would be consulted regarding mitigation for any discoveries made during any of the environmental surveys.

Enbridge stated that, while some bio-physical field survey reports would be submitted by mid- July, late summer rare plant survey results would not be available until early August. In some instances, Enbridge has requested permission to commence construction as soon as 10 days subsequent to the filing of the site-specific survey reports. Enbridge stated that it would submit the results of these outstanding studies to the NEB prior to the commencement of Pipeline construction for these site-specific areas.

Views of the Board

The Board is of the view that it would be more effective if mitigation measures from the surveys were encompassed in one complete EPP as opposed to having a number of supplementary attachments. Furthermore, the Board finds that completion and submission of field surveys 10 days prior to construction is not optimal and could affect the quality of the surveys and mitigation strategies due to time constraints. The Board also notes that, while Enbridge intends to undertake and submit a number of bio-physical surveys by mid-summer of 2008, it is possible that due to weather or unforeseen circumstances, the surveys may be delayed thereby increasing the number of surveys being submitted 10 days prior to construction in those surveyed areas.

21 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

The Board acknowledges that, although Enbridge’s contingency plans filed in the application would likely result in effective mitigation for any species discovered, site-specific mitigation would not be known until surveys are completed.

To ensure that appropriate mitigation strategies would be in place and effectively communicated, upon receipt of any survey reports after the filing of the EPP, it is recommended that, as appropriate, meetings with Enbridge and Board Staff take place prior to the commencement of construction within these site-specific areas to discuss Enbridge’s survey findings, proposed mitigation measures and the results of its consultation with other agencies.

9.3.1 Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects to be Mitigated through Standard Measures

9.3.1.1 Analysis Enbridge has identified standard design and mitigation measures for all the potential environmental effects that were categorized in Section 9.2 as fitting into this analysis stream.

The following table provides additional discussion on the potential adverse environmental effects and associated standard mitigation that have been the subject of comments received by the NEB, for which the NEB required further information from the company, or which involved Enbridge commitments to other federal and provincial departments or agencies.

Potential Adverse Notes Environmental Effect Discovery of existing ƒ Enbridge has existing ‘Contaminated Soil Management Procedures’ which address: contaminated soils o contamination identification; o initial response (e.g., notification of company and government contacts); o soil handling and temporary storage; o erosion control; o soil sampling and testing; o disposal; and o documentation. ƒ Enbridge committed to remove and replace contaminated soils encountered during construction with clean soil, in a manner that meets or exceeds the applicable regulatory criteria. Introduction/spreading ƒ Several locations of weed infestations have been identified along the Route during of weeds on the RoW vegetation surveys conducted to date. A pre-construction weed survey would be

Bio-Physical conducted along the entire proposed route prior to construction. ƒ Appropriate provincial representatives would be contacted to discuss weeds of concern in their respective areas. ƒ The NEB recommends a five-year post-construction monitoring program to monitor various environmental issues including weeds (see Recommendation (3) in Section 9.7). ƒ Enbridge stated that any problematic areas noted during the post-construction monitoring program period would be controlled (e.g,. hand picking, mowing or spraying), as deemed appropriate by Enbridge, the municipal agricultural weed specialist and landowners. ƒ Additional weed management plans were committed to by Enbridge, pursuant to its

22 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Potential Adverse Notes Environmental Effect Settlement Agreement with the Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association/ Saskatchewan Association of Pipeline Landowners (MPLA/SAPL) [the Agreement], as discussed in Section 9.3.2.1. Fish mortality and the ƒ Enbridge has identified: disturbance or o the locations of watercourse crossings; alteration of fish o species that are or could be present; habitat o vehicle and pipeline crossing techniques; and

o mitigation measures. ƒ Enbridge has undertaken fish and fish habitat surveys at all watercourse crossings along the Route. ƒ Enbridge has in place a ‘Fish and Bivalve Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plan’. ƒ DFO provided its analysis, assessment and recommendations regarding the Project in its evidence dated 19 September 2007. ƒ Enbridge stated that it is maintaining ongoing consultations with DFO. Enbridge would, where warranted, request a letter of advice for determination of whether a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat may occur. ƒ Enbridge stated that it would adhere to all approvals, permits and authorizations issued by regulatory authorities and that any alternatives or alterations to crossing requirements specified in approvals, permits and authorizations would require approval prior to the commencement of crossing construction. Alteration of wetlands ƒ Enbridge provided EC with a wetland compensation proposal as compensation would (habitat, hydrologic be necessary where wetland habitat is not fully restored following construction. and/or water quality Enbridge stated that EC was satisfied with the key components of the proposal. function) ƒ Enbridge has committed to forming a joint Enbridge/EC committee to ensure that the post-construction monitoring to be used in determining the need and amount of wetland compensation is conducted in a mutually satisfactory manner. Bio-Physical Sensory disturbance ƒ Enbridge stated that it would adhere to restrictions on construction activities (i.e., and/or mortality of timing and setback distances) for identified sensitive wildlife species unless otherwise wildlife approved by provincial and federal wildlife authorities. Disturbance, alteration ƒ Enbridge has submitted various 2007 surveys and associated mitigation of habitat and/or recommendations and would submit outstanding 2008 field surveys (relating to mortality or wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish and fish habitat and rare vegetation) to appropriate destruction of species agencies, including EC, DFO and SE. at risk (wildlife, fish ƒ Enbridge submitted that EC is satisfied with its proposed survey plans, proposed and/or vegetation) mitigation related to species at risk and the timing of submission of 2008 reports. ƒ Enbridge anticipates that any discoveries made in the 2008 surveys would be similar to those found in prior surveys and the corresponding mitigation measures would either be the same or similar to those already proposed. Enbridge has committed to consult with applicable federal and provincial agencies to confirm the suitability of proposed mitigation for any new discoveries. ƒ Enbridge has in place Species of Concern Discovery Contingency Plans for fish and bivalves, plants and wildlife. ƒ Enbridge intends to submit the results of any outstanding surveys, which are not completed prior to filing its EPP with the Board, at least 10 days prior to the planned construction in that particular area. Any required revisions to the EPP or alignment sheets would also be filed at least 10 days prior to construction in the respective area(s).

23 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Potential Adverse Notes Environmental Effect Disturbance to ƒ Construction is scheduled outside peak agricultural and ranching activity periods. agricultural and ƒ Enbridge would provide notification to farmers and compensation for crop loss. ranching operations ƒ In addition, post-construction monitoring may address some of these issues. Loss of enjoyment of ƒ Enbridge would ensure compliance with AEUB Noise Directive 038 (now referred to property caused by as ERCB Directive 038: Noise Control) at all of the pump facilities. noise ƒ This Directive is designed to maintain acceptable noise levels and to maintain quality of life for residents near energy industry facilities. Disturbance/destructio ƒ Should any previously unidentified heritage resources sites be encountered during n of heritage resources construction of the Project, activity at that site would be stopped and Enbridge would implement its Heritage Resource Discovery Contingency Plan. The site would be fully documented prior to resumption of construction activity. ƒ In addition to this standard mitigation, the Board recommends that Enbridge file with the Board the results of its archaeological and paleontological investigations with the

Socio-Economic Socio-Economic resulting recommendations, including those related to the Thornhill Burial Mounds. Further, the Board recommends that Enbridge immediately cease work at the location of the discovery of any previously unidentified archaeological or heritage resources, notify responsible provincial authorities and resume work only after approval is granted by the responsible provincial authority (See Recommendations (1) and (2) in Section 9.7). Loss or alteration of ƒ Should any previously unidentified traditional Aboriginal sites be encountered during traditional Aboriginal construction of the Project, activity at that site would be stopped and Enbridge would sites implement its Heritage Resource Discovery Contingency Plan. The site would be fully documented prior to resumption of construction activities.

Post-Construction Monitoring

As part of its overall mitigation, Enbridge has committed to undertaking a two-year post- construction monitoring program that would include an assessment of reclamation, revegetation, erosion control and any weed problems along the RoW. Enbridge submitted that post- construction monitoring for two complete years following construction is appropriate; however, it would also continue to monitor any outstanding issues after two years and file with the NEB the results of post-construction monitoring conducted in subsequent years until the issues are resolved.

9.3.1.2 Views of the Board The Board recognizes Enbridge’s commitment to continue to monitor outstanding environmental issues following its proposed two-year post-construction monitoring program. However, to ensure that a more rigorous and consistent approach is applied to the resolution of outstanding issues post- construction, the Board is of the view that a longer period of formal monitoring and reporting is required. Based on the Board’s experience, it is of the view that two years is often not adequate to assess mitigation for a variety of environmental elements including but not limited to, soil productivity on cultivated lands, weeds, native prairie and plant species of special concern along the Pipeline. A longer monitoring timeframe is often required to deal with factors such as variable soil moisture conditions depending on annual climatic factors, variability of soil types encountered

24 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report and variability of mitigation employed during construction. Regarding the latter, environmental effects can vary in accordance with the construction techniques or mitigative techniques employed, some of which would not be chosen until the actual time of construction. An extended timeframe would also provide a more adequate data set by which to assess the efficacy of Enbridge’s mitigation. Therefore, it is recommended that Enbridge undertake a five-year post-construction monitoring program as outlined in Recommendation (3) in Section 9.7. Further, such a program should outline Enbridge’s methodology for assessing the effectiveness of its mitigation.

With respect to those potential environmental effects identified in Section 9.2 which are normally resolved through the use of standard design or mitigation measures and for which the analysis in Section 9.3.1 applies, the NEB is of the view that if Enbridge ƒ effectively implements the standard design and mitigation measures proposed in its application and subsequent submissions, and ƒ adheres to the commitments made during the oral public hearing and the recommendations outlined in Section 9.7 of this ESR, these potential adverse environmental effects of the Project are not likely to be significant.

9.3.2 Detailed Analysis of Potential Adverse Environmental Effects Definitions for the ‘Evaluation of Significance’ Criteria used in the following tables are found in Appendix 2.

9.3.2.1 Potential Effects on Agricultural Soil Capability

Legend: Bio-Physical Socio-Economic Other

Background/Issues Enbridge outlined several potential adverse effects on agricultural soil capability, as indicated in Section 9.2. Any of these effects in isolation or in combination could hinder future crop growth on cultivated agricultural lands if not properly mitigated. In its evidence and Information Requests of Enbridge, MPLA/SAPL raised concerns regarding Project effects on agricultural soils. In particular, MPLA/SAPL submitted that: ƒ the baseline soils information being relied on by Enbridge was not sufficient to adequately ascertain Project effects and mitigation; ƒ Enbridge was inappropriately using the terms ‘soil capability’ and ‘soil productivity’ and that the terms are neither synonymous or proxies for one another; ƒ Enbridge had failed to identify potential effects associated with compaction and trench subsidence; ƒ Enbridge’s proposed mitigation was not adequate, particularly as it related to trench subsidence and compaction; ƒ Enbridge’s proposed post-construction monitoring program was not adequate to assess Project effects on soil capability; ƒ Enbridge’s wet soil contingency plan was not adequate as suspension of construction activities was a “last resort” after considering other contingency measures and further, the descriptors used to determine when construction should halt were too subjective; ƒ Enbridge had not proposed the use of a landowner construction monitor to assist in possible support of landowner concerns in resolving any soils related issues that may arise during construction; and

25 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

ƒ post-construction monitoring reports from previous Enbridge and other pipeline construction projects that Enbridge was relying on as proof of the effectiveness of its proposed soil mitigation measures, were based on little objective data and much subjective observation. On 19 October 2007, MPLA/SAPL filed with the Board the Agreement that they reached with Enbridge and indicated that they had resolved their issues with Enbridge. Included within this Agreement were numerous mitigation measures that Enbridge had previously committed to implement during Pipeline construction within its application as well as mitigation measures specific to the Agreement. Enbridge also responded to questions raised by the Board throughout the proceedings pertaining to soil erosion from stockpiled soil windrows, topsoil stripping and wet weather shutdown criteria. Mitigation Within its application and subsequent submissions, Enbridge outlined mitigation for Measures alleviating potential effects on soil capability. Much of this mitigation could be considered standard mitigation that is typically employed during large diameter pipeline construction and will not be repeated here. The following is a brief summary of issues pertaining to certain mitigative strategies that were raised by either MPLA/SAPL or the Board during the course of the proceedings. Joint Committee/Independent Construction Monitor/Environmental Inspection Enbridge stated that it would assign a minimum of one Lead Environmental Inspector per spread while construction activities are underway and that Assistant Environmental Inspectors would be assigned as necessary during key construction activities such as clearing, topsoil stripping, water crossing construction, and topsoil replacement and erosion control during rough clean up. Resource Specialists would also be employed as required during construction at certain environmentally sensitive areas. Pursuant to the Agreement, any issues relating to potential effects on soil productivity would also likely be addressed though the Independent Construction Monitor and the Joint Committee as outlined in the Agreement. Enbridge indicated that its preference would be to have the Joint Committee represent the members of MPLA/SAPL and also non-members. Alternatively, Enbridge indicated that it would deal with matters through a complaint-based process, where issues would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Finally, Enbridge suggested that, although one committee would be preferable, if there is need for two, Enbridge would constitute two committees. Baseline Soils Information Enbridge submitted that its soils surveys were adequate to characterize the soils which would be encountered along the Route as soil surveys provide an indication as to factors such as soil types and depths, but there can still be substantial variability of these factors between data points. Localized effects related to previous pipeline construction or to natural variability would be at a scale too small to map and would be addressed on site by the Environmental Inspector. Further, Enbridge stated that post-construction monitoring for previous Enbridge projects along the Route did not indicate any extensive topsoil/subsoil mixing issues and, therefore, additional soil surveys were not warranted along the segments of the Route that parallel the existing Enbridge pipeline corridor. Compaction and Trench Subsidence According to Enbridge, once compacted areas have been determined through a comparison of compaction levels on and off RoW, measures for alleviating compaction would include, but not be limited to, ripping with a multishank ripper, employing a subsoiler plow and general cultivation across the RoW. Backfill and compaction procedures would be developed during detailed engineering, but Enbridge stated that it would undertake baseline bulk density testing off RoW prior to backfilling of the trench. The backfilled trench would be compacted to the extent feasible,

26 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

using suitable equipment along the trenchline during non-frozen conditions. Alternative methods of compaction would be used if approved by Enbridge’s engineer. Pursuant to the Agreement, Enbridge further committed to subgrade surface bulk density testing on the RoW prior to ditching and after backfilling with a view to restore the RoW ditchline to within 10 percent of the original subgrade surface baseline measurement. Enbridge committed to further subsidence mitigation such as re-grading, re-stripping and importation of topsoil, if necessary. Wet/Thawed Soils Contingency Plan Enbridge’s wet/thawed soils contingency plan provides guidance as to when certain pipeline construction activities should be suspended due to wet or thawed soils. One concern that the Board noted with the plan was that there was a potential conflict between it and Enbridge’s proposed criteria for progressively increased topsoil stripping widths found elsewhere in its application. It was not clear if Enbridge intended to undertake topsoil stripping operations even during excessively wet soil conditions. In its response to a Board Information Request, Enbridge clarified that topsoil salvage operations would be suspended during excessively wet soil conditions. Pursuant to the Agreement, Enbridge has committed to three additional provisions to the wet/thawed soils contingency plan on MPLA/SAPL member lands: ƒ Environmental Inspectors would consider the depth of plasticity of surface soils as a new criteria; ƒ implementation of contingency measures prior to the occurrence of wet/thawed soils indicators if weather conditions are such that excessively wet/thawed soil conditions are likely to occur; and ƒ all heavy traffic is to be suspended in excessively wet/thawed soil conditions where topsoil has been replaced. Further, according to the Agreement, the independent construction monitor would have input into the decision as to when to suspend activities in conjunction with Enbridge’s Chief Inspector and Environmental Inspector. Monitoring Enbridge committed to undertaking a two year post-construction monitoring program to address and resolve any issues along Pipeline RoW.

Views of the Board Regarding the MPLA/SAPL contention that the terms soil productivity and soil capability were being used inappropriately by Enbridge, the Board notes that there may be uncertainty associated with these terms and they may have different uses in different contexts; however, the Board has previously accepted the use of soil productivity as an indicator of soil capability, often measured in terms of equivalent crop growth, in previous post-construction assessments. Additionally, Enbridge has outlined its proposed post-construction monitoring program for Project effects on soils in its application and it stated that it would undertake more detailed soil assessments, as required.

Within its application and supporting evidence, Enbridge stated its proposed measures, including contingency plans and its environmental inspection program, for mitigating Project effects on agricultural soils. The Board notes that it would discuss with Enbridge any outstanding issues that it may have regarding its EPP as outlined in Section 9.4.

The Board does have concerns regarding Enbridge’s proposed two year timeframe for post- construction monitoring and is of the view that two years may not be an adequate timeframe for

27 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report assessing the effectiveness of Enbridge’s mitigation for Project effects on soils. Should the Project be approved, the Board recommends that Enbridge undertake such monitoring for a period of five years (Recommendation (3) in Section 9.7). Further, the Board would be assessing Enbridge’s post-construction monitoring methodology and would discuss any outstanding issues with Enbridge. The Board is of the view that this monitoring program would be a valuable tool for assessing the potential effects of the Project on soil capability and the success of the mitigation applied.

Overall, the Board is satisfied with Enbridge’s proposed mitigation for Project effects on agricultural soils capability and, when considered with the Board’s Recommendation (3) in Section 9.7, is of the view that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on agricultural soils. The Board notes that this conclusion pertains to all agricultural lands affected by the Project.

Evaluation of Significance

Geographical Frequency Duration Reversibility Magnitude Extent Isolated Short-term Short to long-term Footprint Low to medium Adverse Effect Not likely to be significant

9.3.2.2 Native Prairie: Potential Effects and Reclamation

Legend: Bio-Physical Socio-Economic Other

Background/Issues In general, the amount of native prairie is declining across the prairie provinces due to development pressures. Native prairie can present unique reclamation challenges due to its vulnerability to disturbance and invasion by non-native species. Additionally, rare plant species and communities are often associated with native prairie. Enbridge’s assessment of Project effects and proposed mitigation for plant species and communities of concern has been previously discussed in Sections 6.1, 6.4, and 9.3.1.1. Although much of the Route crosses cultivated lands, there are some larger tracts of native prairie in areas such as the Sounding-Sunken Environmentally Significant Area in AB and the PFRA pastures in SK. Isolated tracts of native prairie can be found throughout the Route. Disturbance of native prairie would occur along the proposed Pipeline RoW and at the Hardisty Terminal for the proposed tank construction. Enbridge stated that a maximum of approximately 220 ha of native prairie would be disturbed along the Route. This is considered to be a conservative estimate since it includes lands that formed temporary workspace for previous pipeline construction and would have been previously cleared or disturbed. Approximately 10 ha of native prairie would be permanently lost due to tankage construction at the Hardisty Terminal. Enbridge noted that the wind erodible soils in the Sounding Dunes area, the Elbow PFRA Community Pasture and the Oak Lake Sand Hills and Souris Sand Hills may pose reclamation challenges and would require increased re-vegetation efforts. Enbridge stated that post-construction monitoring along the Route through these areas would ensure that any identified re-vegetation issues would be remediated in a timely manner. Enbridge did not identify any effects on vegetation that, in its view, could not be technically

28 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

or economically compensated. Consequently, it concluded that the residual effects of Pipeline construction and operation on vegetation would not be significant. SE provided comments pertaining to the use of native seed mixes in areas of native vegetation. SE noted that all areas of Crown Land must be seeded with an approved, weed free, native seed mix and subject to landowner approval. SE recommended the use of native seed mix when reclaiming areas of native vegetation on privately owned land. SE also noted measures to prevent the spread of invasive species in areas of native vegetation. EC noted Enbridge’s proposed use of straw crimping to stabilize wind erodible soils on areas such as native grasslands and sand dunes. EC recommended that, due to the potential for weed introduction from straw, Enbridge explore the possibility of using native hay for crimping on native grassland and especially the native sand dune areas. Regarding the loss of native prairie at the Hardisty Terminal, Enbridge stated that there are no locally or regionally adopted thresholds or standards against which the incremental change in vegetation composition as a result of the tank expansion can be judged. Although the area is considered suitable wildlife habitat for various species, including species at risk, the habitat features within the proposed tank development site also occur through much of the surrounding area and are not considered locally unique. Mitigation Enbridge stated that an objective of its reclamation efforts was to return the RoW to as-near Measures pre-construction conditions as feasible within a practical time frame. On native grasslands and riparian areas where the species composition of natural plant communities may be difficult to restore following disturbance, emphasis would be placed on reducing the total area of disturbance and providing a reclaimed condition that would facilitate restoration of the native plant populations and communities. Enbridge’s standard stripping width on native prairie, during non-frozen soil conditions, would be trench and work lane. This is due to the high potential for rutting and sod/topsoil pulverization arising from the large amount of heavy equipment traffic required to install the large diameter Pipeline as well as the potential for tracking of subsoil from adjacent lands where full RoW topsoil stripping had occurred. In the absence of trench and work lane stripping, Enbridge stated that it anticipated that there are very few locations where the sod layer would remain intact during the construction program. However, there may be short, localized areas where the topsoil stripping width may be reduced to blade width. Enbridge’s Environmental Inspectors would identify these locations during a Route reconnaissance immediately prior to commencement of topsoil stripping. Additionally, a narrower topsoil stripping width would be utilized during construction at locations of site-specific features which require narrowing down of the construction right-of-way such as wildlife habitat features and rare plant locations. Other mitigation outlined by Enbridge to protect and reclaim native prairie included: ƒ measures in its Traffic Control Plan to minimize disturbance to native vegetation; ƒ field studies for plant species and communities of concern and subsequently developed mitigation. Enbridge outlined preliminary mitigation but final mitigation would be based on site-specific conditions and species sensitivity criteria and decisions would be made in consultation with botanical experts, the Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre, the Saskatchewan and Manitoba Conservation Data Centers and, where appropriate, the land authority. Enbridge submitted that its proposed mitigation measures such as narrowing down the RoW to avoid plants or covering them with geotextile pads have been used successfully on other major pipeline construction projects; ƒ lands with native vegetation would be seeded with an approved native seed mix and the use of highly invasive species on adjacent non-native lands would be avoided; ƒ specific mitigation measures were developed for areas with highly wind erodible soils such as the Sounding Dunes, Elbow PFRA Community Pasture, Oak Lake Sand Hills, the Souris Sand Hills and other areas with wind erodible soils; and

29 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

ƒ separate mitigation plans were developed for the three PFRA pastures which are traversed. Enbridge had additional discussions with EC regarding its recommendation that Enbridge explore the possibility of acquiring native hay for crimping on native grassland, especially in the native sand dune areas. Enbridge submitted that it has demonstrated success stabilizing and re-vegetating sand dune areas with the use of straw crimping, a native seed mix, and monitoring to ensure that the measures are successful. Enbridge stated that it does not intend to use native hay for crimping for a variety of reasons including lack of ready availability and the disturbance associated with harvesting large amounts off-RoW. However, Enbridge stated that it would consider the use of native hay as crimping material in sandy areas on a trial basis, depending on availability. If the use of this material is considered to provide adequate erosion control, Enbridge would inform the NEB and EC of the trial location(s). Enbridge noted that its post-construction monitoring program would address erodible sandy soils. Monitoring Enbridge committed to undertaking a two year post-construction monitoring program to address and resolve any issues along the Pipeline RoW.

Views of the Board Within its application and supporting evidence, Enbridge stated its proposed measures, including contingency plans and its environmental inspection program, for mitigating Project effects on native prairie. Some mitigation details would be further outlined in Enbridge’s EPP and the Board notes that it would discuss with Enbridge any outstanding issues that it may have regarding its EPP as outlined in Section 9.4. One issue that the Board would like to explore further with Enbridge are additional measures for reducing the topsoil stripping width on native prairie, thereby reducing the total area of disturbance.

Similar to its concerns noted in Section 9.3.2.1, the Board does have concerns regarding Enbridge’s proposed two year timeframe for post-construction monitoring and is of the view that two years may not be an adequate timeframe for assessing the effectiveness of Enbridge’s mitigation for Project effects on native prairie. Should the Project be approved, the Board recommends that Enbridge undertake such monitoring for a period of five years (see Recommendation (3) in Section 9.7). Further, the Board would be assessing Enbridge’s post- construction monitoring methodology and would discuss any outstanding issues with Enbridge. The Board is of the view that this monitoring program would be a valuable tool for assessing the potential effects of the Project on native prairie and the success of the mitigation applied.

Overall, the Board is satisfied with Enbridge’s proposed mitigation for Project effects on native prairie and, when considered with the Board’s Recommendation (3) in Section 9.7, is of the view that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on native prairie.

Evaluation of Significance

Geographical Frequency Duration Reversibility Magnitude Extent Medium to long- Isolated Short-term Local Low to medium term Adverse Effect Not likely to be significant

30 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

9.3.2.3 Disruption or Inability to Carry on Traditional Activities

Legend: Bio-Physical Socio-Economic Other

Background/Issues The Métis Nation of Saskatchewan submitted that:

ƒ Métis Aboriginal rights have not been considered in relation to the proposed Pipeline, yet the Métis of Saskatchewan would be affected by it; and ƒ a preliminary assessment of effects from the Project has been carried out and the Métis Nation – Saskatchewan indicated that Métis do carry out traditional harvesting in the area of the Route, and are concerned about potential disturbance of historical and archaeological sites. The Battleford Agency Tribal Chiefs Inc. (BATC) submitted that:

ƒ the First Nations represented by the BATC have ongoing traditional use on their traditional lands near the proposed Pipeline; ƒ it is particularly concerned about the sacred sites at Herschel, SK, which include petroglyphs and tipi rings, and about sites where plants are gathered for traditional and medicinal uses since many of those plants have long recovery times after harvesting; and ƒ once the Pipeline RoW is established, those lands would cease to be accessible to the people of the BATC member First Nations. The Poundmaker Cree Nation submitted that:

ƒ it continues to hunt in the PPFRA and is concerned that the Pipeline could negatively impact this activity, therefore, it recommends construction during the summer when hunting does not take place; and ƒ since the Pipeline would run very close to Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) lands recently purchased by Poundmaker, it is concerned about potential impacts on the environment near those lands from the Pipeline, and how the Pipeline may impact the use of the TLE lands by Poundmaker. Mitigation Enbridge proposes the following mitigation: Measures ƒ Construction in summer when working in the PPFRA. Enbridge also reached a settlement with Poundmaker during the oral hearing in which it agreed to fund and carry out a Traditional Ecological Knowledge Study. Both parties committed to work on coming to agreement concerning mitigative strategies, covering Poundmaker’s concerns about effects on traditional use and hunting in the PPFRA. This lead to Poundmaker withdrawing its intervention from the OH-4-2007 proceedings. ƒ If traditional sites or current traditional uses are discovered, Enbridge would work with communities, continue consultation with Aboriginal groups with an interest in the Pipeline and, if site specific concerns are found, attempt to resolve them using its Indigenous Peoples Policy. ƒ Ongoing consultation with Aboriginal people. ƒ The Route would avoid the Thornhill Burial Mounds site and the Hershel site, endeavouring to avoid as many heritage resource sites as possible and minimize disturbance to others. ƒ To minimize or avoid potential disruption of agricultural activities on Swan Lake Indian Reserve No. 7, construction would be scheduled outside peak agricultural periods. Enbridge would provide advance notice of construction, apply standard measures to avoid topsoil loss and re-plant stripped areas. ƒ Concerning the Rowatt Pump Station, it is surrounded by land that has been in industrial use for years, so it would not affect traditional use and mitigation is not required. The

31 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

same is true for the Hardisty Terminal, which would be expanded onto privately-owned lands long used for agricultural purposes. ƒ In the event of a discovery of archaeological, historical or paleontological resources, Enbridge would implement its Heritage Resources Discovery Contingency Plan. Monitoring No ongoing monitoring is proposed by Enbridge or recommended by the NEB.

Views of the Board In the event that the Project is approved, the Board would require that Enbridge fulfill its commitments to undertake mitigation set out in its application and subsequent submissions. In particular, since several Aboriginal parties expressed concerns at the oral hearing regarding the gathering of medicinal plants, including two parties that were engaged late in the process, the Board would require Enbridge to continue consultation with the aim of developing mitigative strategies, which are consistent with commitments made at the hearing and in its application, to address potential effects on medicinal plant gathering.

The Board notes that the majority of lands required for the Project are previously disturbed and primarily used for agricultural purposes. In addition, of the 1 272 ha of land required along the proposed RoW, Crown land is minimal and comprises approximately 92 ha. The Board also notes that Enbridge consulted with Aboriginal groups in the area of the Project and Enbridge has committed to ongoing discussions and mitigative strategy development with Aboriginal groups that have expressed concern about their ability to continue traditional use activities.

The Board recommends that Enbridge continue to consult with Aboriginal groups and report to the Board about the outcomes of those consultations (see Recommendations (4), (5) and (6) in Section 9.7).

The Board is of the view that, with the implementation of the mitigation proposed by Enbridge, its commitment to address any impacts on traditional use activities or sites that may arise as consultation continues, and the implementation of the recommendations set out in Section 9.7 of this ESR, potential effects on current traditional use activities are not likely to be significant.

Evaluation of Significance

Geographical Frequency Duration Reversibility Magnitude Extent Isolated Short-term Short-term Local Low Adverse Effect Not likely to be significant

32 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

9.3.2.4 Air Quality in the Vicinity of the Hardisty Terminal

Legend: Bio-Physical Socio-Economic Other

Background/Issues Enbridge stated that air quality in the area of the Hardisty Terminal is primarily a function of anthropogenic sources or emissions such as those arising from vehicle and rail traffic on adjacent rural roads and railways and the surrounding agricultural and oil and gas activities (e.g., tank farms). Enbridge stated that its proposed pump additions at the Hardisty Terminal would not result in an increase in airborne emissions during operations or maintenance since the pumps would be electrically-driven but that there may be odours emitted from the new tanks during operations. Atmospheric emissions in the form of evaporative losses from storage tanks include vapours of various hydrocarbons and sulphur compounds. Enbridge stated that under normal operations, minimal off-site air emissions are expected to result from the proposed addition of its tanks at the Hardisty Terminal since these tanks would feature external floating roofs to manage evaporation losses; however, there could be events causing potential odourous emissions that occur intermittently and sporadically throughout the life of the tanks. Based on the results of previous air quality modeling at the Hardisty Terminal for other tankage projects, Enbridge anticipated that, after the currently proposed tank expansion, the ground-level concentrations associated with expected increases in emissions would be less than the corresponding national and provincial ambient objectives and criteria for the substances of interest. Cumulative Effects Assessment Presently, there are 43 storage tanks in operation by Enbridge and other companies at the Hardisty Terminal. Forty-one of these existing storage tanks are considered as potential sources of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) emissions. There are also proposed tanks associated with the Enbridge Midstream Inc. Merchant Tank Project and the TransCanada Keystone Project. Enbridge stated that the tank component of the Alberta Clipper Expansion Project would act cumulatively with emissions from the existing and proposed tanks; however, based on the expected results of its proposed air quality modeling (see the ‘Mitigation Measures’ area below), Enbridge submitted that potentially significant adverse impacts on ambient air quality associated with the Project are not anticipated to occur and air quality within the local airshed should remain acceptable relative to national and provincial ambient objectives and criteria. It concluded that the cumulative residual effects of the construction and operation of the Project on air quality would not be significant. The Hardisty Complex Committee Enbridge stated that the proposed new tanks would be included within the ongoing multi- company air monitoring program in the Hardisty heavy industrial area. The Terminal operators responsible for this monitoring are part of the Hardisty Complex Committee, which is comprised of all the companies that operate tankage at Hardisty and regulators, including the Board and AE. In 2002, the Board and AE established an air emissions monitoring program for the operators at the Hardisty Terminal. Mitigation Enbridge stated that it would model anticipated air quality in the immediate vicinity of the Measures proposed new tanks at the Hardisty Terminal and submit the results to the Board in December 2007. This modeling program would focus on the expected releases and dispersion of H2S, benzene, and mercaptan from products to be stored in the proposed tanks. Enbridge’s air quality modeling would also consider cumulative air quality effects taking into account existing tanks as well as proposed tanks. Enbridge stated that it would model a conservative worst-case emissions scenario before and after the proposed expansion for the Project. Enbridge’s initial assessment of cumulative impacts to air quality indicates that ground level concentrations would be below the applicable national and provincial objectives

33 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

and criteria. These values would be confirmed through its proposed dispersion modeling. In addition to modeling, Enbridge stated that it would implement the following mitigation: ƒ Design and install the proposed tanks in compliance with appropriate standards (including the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products), regulations, best industry practices and guidelines for permanent crude oil tanks. ƒ Equip new tanks with an external floating roof with primary and secondary rim seals as well as guide pole and floating roof leg seals to minimize odorous emissions. ƒ Application of operating procedures to minimize the landing of the floating roof. ƒ Application of good industry practice during degassing and cleaning of the storage tanks. ƒ Periodic inspections of the tanks in accordance with CCME and American Petroleum Institute requirements. ƒ Conduct post-construction headspace emissions monitoring two times per year during the operations phase of the tanks. ƒ Conduct post-construction air emissions monitoring to confirm that air quality objectives are met during operation of the tanks. Monitoring Enbridge confirmed that its proposed post-construction head space and emissions monitoring program would be in compliance with the most recent air emissions monitoring requirements of the Hardisty Complex Committee as established by the Board and AE.

Views of the Board The Board notes that Enbridge’s initial assessment of Project-specific and cumulative air quality effects associated with the Project indicates that ground level concentrations of hydrocarbon and sulphur compounds would be below the applicable national and provincial objectives. These values would be confirmed through dispersion modeling. Enbridge has committed to submit the results of its modeling to the Board. The Board would assess the report and discuss any issues that it may have with Enbridge.

The Board is satisfied that Enbridge’s proposed mitigation would greatly reduce the potential for any significant negative air quality effects as a result of its proposed Project. The Board also notes that Enbridge has confirmed that its proposed post-construction head space and emissions monitoring program would be in compliance with the most recent air emissions monitoring requirements at the Hardisty Terminal as established by the Board and AE.

The Board is of the view that the components of the Project to be constructed and operated at the Hardisty Terminal are not likely to result in significant adverse effects on air quality.

Evaluation of Significance

Geographical Frequency Duration Reversibility Magnitude Extent Immediate to long- Occasional Long-term Region Low term Adverse Effect Not likely to be significant

34 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

9.3.2.5 Potential Effects on Wetlands and Aquifers Caused by an Accident or Malfunction of the Pipeline

Legend: Bio-Physical Socio-Economic Other

Background/Issues Concerns were raised by the public, including EC, with respect to potential effects on aquifers and wetlands in the event of a rupture or leak during the operational phase of the Project. Noted areas of concern to EC include the Oak Lake/Plum Lake wetland complex, the Glenboro Marsh/Black Slough wetland complex, Demare Slough, as well as several other wetlands/depressions denoted by KP numbers. EC recommended that Enbridge provide alternative routing to avoid major wetland complexes or provide other measures to increase the integrity of the Pipeline. Certain Route realignments have addressed various EC concerns. To address various other areas of concern, EC recommended the installation of isolation valves on the Pipeline on both sides of Demare Slough, wetlands at KP 1124 and KP 1161 and at several other identified wetland/depression locations. Enbridge assessed the need for a Specialized Integrity Assessment Program (SIAP) that would encompass the design, construction and operation phases of the Pipeline segments near the Oak Lake, Assiniboine and Winkler aquifers as well as the aquifer near the Swan Lake Indian Reserve No. 7. Upon questioning from the Board, Enbridge stated that the SIAP would be integrated into Enbridge’s existing Integrity Management Program (IMP). The IMP is a requirement for Board-regulated companies under the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999 (OPR-99). The Board notes that Board-regulated companies are also required to have an Emergency Preparedness and Response Program (EPR Program), pursuant to the OPR-99. Mitigation To mitigate potential effects on aquifers, pursuant to its existing IMP and its current practices Measures for design and construction, Enbridge stated that it would undertake an evaluation of the following potential mitigative strategies and select measures appropriate for the proposed Pipeline: ƒ increase the minimum depth of cover to 1.5 m to limit the potential for third party damage; ƒ increase the frequency of internal corrosion checks; ƒ optimize valve location and spacing to limit the amount of product that could be released; ƒ increase the wall thickness of the pipe; and ƒ ensure adequate cathodic protection of the Pipeline. The Pipeline would be hydrostatically tested prior to operation (Recommendation (7) in Section 9.7 provides details on the requirements for hydrostatic testing). Enbridge stated that it has in place an Emergency Response Program that was developed to be consistent with industry standard publications such as Emergency Planning for Industry (CAN/CSA-Z731). This Program would have measures in place to promptly and effectively respond to a release of product from the Pipeline. Enbridge has a series of programs in place to minimize a potential release, to monitor the pipeline system, and to respond in the event of a release. Enbridge would develop a plan to identify alternate water supplies and committed to provide alternate water sources to affected parties, if warranted, in the event of an accidental release of product that adversely affects an aquifer. Enbridge has committed to conducting a feasibility assessment related to the installation of isolation valves on both sides of Demare Slough and wetlands at KP 1124 and KP 1161. In addition, Enbridge has proposed to install valves at several locations in proximity to wetlands noted by EC and has committed to run its Intelligent Valve Placement Model with

35 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

consideration of other noted wetlands and to discuss the outcomes of the model with EC. In the unlikely event that a hydrocarbon release damages a wetland, Enbridge has committed to compensate for the loss of wetland habitat. Monitoring Included within Enbridge’s IMP and other operational programs are requirements for in-line inspections for denting, corrosion and cracking and other forms of monitoring the integrity of its pipelines such as regular flyovers of the RoW.

Views of the Board The Board notes that the magnitude of a rupture or leak caused from an accident or malfunction could be extensive if the product from the Pipeline entered sensitive water bodies or groundwater. However, the Board is of the view that Enbridge’s commitment to operating the Pipeline in accordance with the specifications, standards and other information referred to in its application, or as otherwise agreed to during the OH-4-2007 proceeding, would minimize the likelihood of a rupture or leak from occurring. Further, Enbridge has committed to undertaking feasibility studies for the consideration of installing isolation valves adjacent to sensitive water areas, which may help mitigate negative effects in the event of a leak or rupture.

The Board notes that it would continue to monitor Enbridge’s pipeline and facility IMP and other operational programs to ensure that they are adequate, that they are being implemented appropriately and that they are effective.

To further minimize the likelihood of a rupture or leak, the Board is of the view that, in any Certificate that may be granted, Enbridge should be directed to: ƒ develop and submit a joining program that includes welding and testing procedures and manuals; ƒ submit a comprehensive health and safety plan and field pressure testing program; and ƒ construct and operate the Pipeline in accordance with the information referred to in its application. Please refer to Recommendations (8), (9) and (10) in Section 9.7 for detailed wording.

Taking into account the programs in place and the proposed recommendations, the Board is of the view that this component of the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of accidents and malfunctions.

Evaluation of Significance

Geographical Frequency Duration Reversibility Magnitude Extent Accidental Short-term Short to long-term Footprint to Region High Adverse Effect Not likely to be significant

36 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

9.3.2.6 Potential Effects on the South Saskatchewan River Caused by an Accident or Malfunction of the Pipeline

Legend: Bio-Physical Socio-Economic Other

Background/Issues A number of concerns were raised by the public, including the City of Saskatoon, Town of Outlook and the Meewasin Valley Authority, with respect to the effects of a spill or leak at the South Saskatchewan River Pipeline crossing on the water supply of downstream users such as the City of Saskatoon and the Town of Outlook. The Board also requested additional information from Enbridge throughout the proceedings regarding its EPR Program and its ability to respond to a Pipeline spill at the South Saskatchewan River. Mitigation As noted in Section 9.3.2.5, Enbridge has, pursuant to the OPR-99, both an EPR Program Measures and an IMP for its existing pipeline system. These programs are assessed and audited by Board Staff. The EPR Program, which is on file with the Board, includes measures to prepare and respond in the event of a spill during Pipeline operation. Enbridge commented on its ability to detect leaks on its pipeline system and stated that its control centre remotely monitors and controls the operation of the pipeline system using Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition systems. In the event of a pressure drop on the system indicating the possibility of a release, the operation of a pipeline can be suspended and operations personnel and equipment are deployed to the site. For larger releases, Enbridge stated that its past experience has shown that it can usually isolate the line within two to three minutes of the release. Enbridge also noted that it conducts bi-weekly aerial patrols of the pipeline system to check for any activities or situations that could affect the integrity of its pipelines such as third party damage or bank erosion. In the event of an actual emergency at the South Saskatchewan River crossing, Enbridge highlighted some of its mitigation as follows: ƒ Enbridge personnel from the Kerrobert office would respond with emergency trailers that contain oil spill recovery equipment such as booms and skimmers. ƒ Upon arrival at site, the spill would be managed in accordance with Enbridge’s incident command program. ƒ Enbridge has on-call staff available as first responders 24 hours a day. These individuals are situated at various locations along the system including in the Milden/Loreburn and Saskatoon areas. Also, Enbridge personnel located within Regina are available on a seven day per week, 24 hour per day, on-call rotation to ensure a timely response. Emergency response trailers are also available at Enbridge’s Regina Facility. ƒ Enbridge is a member of the Area 6 Cooperative which is made up of similar companies in the area working together to prepare for and respond to potential incidents. ƒ Enbridge noted that it has the ability to request that the flow of the River be adjusted by contacting the Saskatchewan Water Authority, which operates the Gardiner Dam upstream of the proposed Enbridge crossing. If river flows could be reduced, it would allow Enbridge more time to get to its control points and deploy equipment such as booms and skimmers. ƒ Enbridge has equipment to respond in frozen conditions and conduct ice-slotting. ƒ Notification would be made to the local police and emergency responders and to any water users that may be potentially impacted. Enbridge also outlined some of its training and testing related to its EPR Program and noted that it trains and is prepared to respond under both summer and winter conditions. Enbridge noted that it conducts table top exercises as well as field exercises including unannounced drills to test its emergency response capabilities. These exercises are conducted to reflect the

37 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

worst-case scenarios that might be found at particular crossing points. Enbridge noted that it had recently (August 2007) conducted a joint emergency response exercise in response to concerns noted by stakeholders downstream of its crossing of the South Saskatchewan River, including the Town of Outlook and the City of Saskatoon. Enbridge submitted that its exercise was very successful in being able to show to the downstream stakeholders what its emergency response capabilities are and how quickly it can respond and contain a release event. Part of Enbridge’s EPR Program is the creation of a control point manual that determines what the flow rate is in the springtime and in the fall. This allows estimation of how far downstream the product could be within specified time periods depending on flow conditions, thereby allowing for emergency response personnel to be dispatched to the appropriate control points. Enbridge monitors 11 Control Points along the River for access to the River at different times of the year. Enbridge stated that it has and continues to work with the City of Saskatoon to carry out response drills and scenario planning in the City, and also works on similar response exercises with the Area 6 Cooperative members. It also noted that it is a member of the Saskatchewan First Call program. Enbridge stated that it would be responsible for any damage to the City of Saskatoon’s water treatment facilities resulting from a spill in the South Saskatchewan River that is a direct result of Enbridge’s operations. Enbridge would bear the cost of repairs to the facilities and for the short term water supply to the City. Monitoring Included within Enbridge’s IMP and other operational programs are requirements for in-line inspections for denting, corrosion and cracking and other forms of monitoring the integrity of its pipelines such as regular flyovers of the RoW.

Views of the Board As required by the OPR-99, Enbridge has an EPR Program in place for its existing pipeline system, including at the location of the South Saskatchewan River crossing. The Board notes that the existing measures and monitoring undertaken by Enbridge would continue to be applicable during the operation of the Pipeline.

To further promote public safety and minimize the likelihood of a rupture or leak at the South Saskatchewan River crossing, as well as elsewhere along the line, the Board is of the view that, in any Certificate that may be granted, Enbridge should be directed to: ƒ develop and submit a joining program that includes welding and testing procedures and manuals; ƒ construct and operate the Pipeline in accordance with the information referred to in its application; and ƒ hydrostatically test the Pipeline in accordance with the latest standards and submit the results of the test as part of its application to begin operations of the Pipeline. Please refer to Recommendations (7), (8), and (10) in Section 9.7 for detailed wording.

Taking into account the programs in place and the NEB’s proposed recommendations, the Board is of the view that this component of the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, as a result of accidents and malfunctions.

38 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

However, the Board recognizes concerns have been expressed about potential contamination of the water supply to downstream users, particularly to the City of Saskatoon and Town of Outlook. Therefore, in any Certificate that the Board may issue, the Board is of the view that Enbridge be directed to undertake an emergency response exercise at the South Saskatchewan River Crossing. The purpose of such an exercise and the Board’s expectations are stated in Recommendation (11) in Section 9.7.

Additionally, in response to Board questioning, Enbridge committed to meet with Board staff to discuss its EPR Program as it relates to the South Saskatchewan River crossing, prior to the operation of the Pipeline, if approved.

Evaluation of Significance

Geographical Frequency Duration Reversibility Magnitude Extent Accidental Short-term Short to long-term Footprint to Region High Adverse Effect Not likely to be significant

9.4 Inspection

Enbridge stated that Environmental Inspectors would be assigned to the construction of the Pipeline to ensure that proposed mitigation measures are properly implemented. In addition, Enbridge stated that appropriate Resource Specialists would be available onsite, when warranted, and would have expertise in the particular issues associated with the spread (i.e., soil scientist, geotechnical engineer, wetland specialist, fisheries biologist, botanist, wildlife biologist, archaeologist, reclamation specialist, etc.). Overall, Enbridge committed to have a suitable number of Environmental Inspectors to provide an appropriate level of inspection. Enbridge further stated that training programs would be developed for all construction and inspection personnel to ensure that all individuals are aware of the environmental issues and their respective responsibilities.

During the course of the proceedings, the Board raised concerns that inspectors may have difficulty in performing their duties if they have to refer to a number of documents (i.e., the application, supplementary submissions and manuals) to find mitigation commitments. Therefore, the NEB is of the view that Enbridge should consolidate all mitigation measures and commitments into a single EPP. Refer to Recommendation (12) in Section 9.7 for more details.

The Board also notes that, pursuant to the NEB Act, the Board has its own inspection program and Board Environmental Inspectors are tasked with ensuring protection of property and the environment.

39 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

9.5 Cumulative Effects Assessment Enbridge’s cumulative effects assessment evaluated the potential adverse residual effects directly associated with the Project in combination with the adverse residual effects arising from other projects and activities that have been or will be carried out in the vicinity of the Project. The reader is referred to Enbridge’s application for additional details on its cumulative effects assessment methodology.

9.5.1 Other Projects Interacting with the Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Past, existing, and proposed projects or activities within and adjacent to the proposed Project corridor include, but are not limited to, oil and gas activity, roads, rail lines, agriculture, power lines, and wind generation projects. The predominant projects that Enbridge noted which could potentially interact with the Project include:

ƒ existing Enbridge pipelines within the RoW that the Project would parallel; ƒ substantial oil and gas activity in around the Hardisty Terminal, including pipeline development and tankage expansions; ƒ various pipeline corridors that the Regina realignment would parallel including TransCanada PipeLines Ltd., Cochin Pipe Lines Ltd. and Alliance Pipeline Ltd.; ƒ Enbridge’s proposed pipeline component of the Southern Lights Project (the LSr Pipeline), which would parallel the Pipeline route with a five metre separation for approximately 288 km in MB; ƒ pump additions or modifications associated with Enbridge’s proposed Southern Access Project; ƒ TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd.’s proposed oil pipeline where it crosses the Pipeline Route; and ƒ proposed wind generation projects in the vicinity of the Pipeline Route.

Enbridge’s existing pipelines, its proposed LSr Pipeline, and tankage construction at the Hardisty Terminal are the projects most likely to result in direct cumulative environmental effects with the Project. The LSr Pipeline route would follow the same route as the Pipeline in MB, from Cromer Terminal to the Canada/US border near Gretna.

9.5.2 Potential Cumulative Effects Enbridge identified potential cumulative residual effects associated with the following elements: ƒ physical elements such as slope stability, soils, water quality and quantity, air quality including greenhouse gases, and the acoustic environment; ƒ biological elements such as fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and species at risk;

40 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

ƒ socio-economic elements such as noise, human occupancy and resource use, heritage resources, traditional land and resource use, human health and infrastructure and services; and ƒ accidents and malfunctions.

Enbridge stated that its proposed Project-specific and cumulative effects-specific environmental protection and mitigation measures are sufficient to address potential cumulative effects and that the cumulative residual environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project are not unlike those routinely encountered during pipeline and associated facility construction in an agricultural setting. The following paragraphs discuss specific mitigation measures that Enbridge is proposing to address cumulative effects related to certain bio-physical and socio-economic elements.

Soil Capability Enbridge stated that construction of the Pipeline would interact cumulatively with previous disturbances and the LSr Pipeline to result in an incremental change in soil capability. Past activities which have affected soil capability are largely attributed to agricultural activities and previous pipeline construction programs. In addition, since the Project and the LSr Pipeline would share the same construction RoW, residual effects on soil arising from the Project would be expected to act cumulatively with the LSr Pipeline. Enbridge noted that, to a lesser extent, the Pipeline may also act cumulatively with the residual effects arising from the construction of the Keystone Pipeline Project but such effects would be limited to the segment where the Pipeline and the Keystone pipeline intersect. Originally, Enbridge proposed to commence construction of both the Southern Lights Project and the Project in late 2007, and extend until 2009. In August 2007, Enbridge submitted a revised cumulative effects assessment considering the scenario that construction of the Pipeline in MB, from Cromer to the Canada/US border near Gretna, would be undertaken one year after construction of the LSr Pipeline. The former would generally commence in summer 2009 and the latter in summer 2008. If constructed separately, the two pipelines would be constructed with a five metre separation and each would require a 40 m wide construction RoW. However, since the two pipelines would parallel one another and would be constructed within a year of each other, the RoWs and temporary workspace would be shared and overlapping. Thus, the total construction RoW width for both pipelines would be 45 m. To minimize topsoil handling and therefore reduce the potential of topsoil and subsoil mixing, Enbridge proposed to leave the topsoil in rows along the RoW in between the two periods of construction to avoid disturbing the topsoil twice. Measures would be taken to stabilize the topsoil and prevent wind erosion and weed infestation. However, Enbridge also stated that if it was the landowner’s preference, it would replace the topsoil at the end of the first construction season and that in either case, landowners would be compensated appropriately. Final clean-up and reclamation of the combined construction RoW would generally be conducted in late fall 2009. Enbridge further noted that its proposed soil handling methods where the two pipelines parallel one another would also result in overall decreased disturbance, which in turn would result in

41 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

reduced effects on other elements such as water quality, wildlife, vegetation, and decrease the potential for the spreading of weeds. Enbridge also assessed the potential for cumulative effects on soil at the proposed Rowatt Pump Station and the Hardisty Terminal where new pumps, tanks, and associated pipeline infrastructure are proposed to be constructed. Enbridge stated that the magnitude of cumulative residual effects on soil capability at these areas is low due to the localized nature of residual effects and, in the case of the Hardisty Terminal, due to improved soil handling practices since past disturbances.

Other Bio-physical and Socio-Economic Elements

Enbridge also proposed to install the LSr Pipeline and the Pipeline simultaneously during construction of the LSr Pipeline component of the Southern Lights Project at certain locations in order to minimize disturbance. These locations include several potentially sensitive watercourse crossings, the Glenboro Marsh/Black Slough wetland complex (KP 1106.9 to KP 1114.5) and within the town of Morden (KP 1195.9 to KP 1197). Enbridge submitted that co-construction of the two pipelines through these areas would be likely to result in reduced cumulative adverse effects on water quality and quantity, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation and wildlife, including species at risk, and other land uses in the Morden area.

Air Quality at the Hardisty Terminal Project-specific and cumulative effects associated with reduced local air quality in the vicinity of the Hardisty Terminal are discussed in Section 9.3.2.3.

9.5.3 Enbridge’s Conclusion

Enbridge submitted that with the implementation of its proposed mitigative strategies, the potential cumulative adverse residual effects associated with the construction and operation of the Pipeline and associated facilities on biophysical and socio-economic elements would not likely be significant.

9.5.4 Views of the Board Enbridge’s proposed concurrent construction of the Pipeline and the LSr Pipeline at certain locations is likely to result in reduced environmental effects on water quality and quantity, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation and wildlife, including species at risk, and other land uses in the Morden area. Further, Enbridge’s proposed soils handling methods to accommodate both projects would lessen potential adverse effects on soil capability. Co-construction of the two projects at certain locations would result in less overall temporal and spatial disturbance on these environmental elements and is the preferred approach, should both projects be approved. However, should topsoil stripping and replacement or co-construction of the two pipelines not occur at the same time, the Board is also of the view that Enbridge’s proposed Project-specific environmental protection and mitigation measures are sufficient such that cumulative adverse environmental effects resulting from the two projects are not likely to be significant.

42 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

The Board is of the view that, taking into consideration Enbridge’s proposed Project-specific mitigation measures, its additional measures proposed to further mitigate cumulative effects, and the NEB’s recommendations referred to in Section 9.7, the proposed Project is not likely to result in significant adverse cumulative environmental effects in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.

9.6 Follow-Up Program The Project and its associated activities are generally routine in nature and the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project are expected to be similar to those of past projects of a similar nature in a similar environment. For this reason, the NEB is of the view that a follow-up program pursuant to the CEA Act would not be appropriate for this Project.

However, it is recommended that Enbridge undertake detailed post-construction monitoring as discussed in Sections 9.3.1.2 and 9.3.2.1.

9.7 Recommendations

It is recommended that, in any Certificate that the NEB may grant or recommend be granted, a condition be included requiring Enbridge to carry out all of the environmental protection and mitigation measures outlined in its application and subsequent submissions. For the purposes of the following recommendations, the term “commencement of construction” includes the clearing of vegetation, ground-breaking and other forms of RoW preparation that may have an effect on the environment, but does not include activities associated with normal surveying operations.

(1) Enbridge shall:

a) file with the Board, at least 30 days prior to the commencement of construction, the results of the archaeological and paleontological investigations; and b) include the recommendations resulting from the archaeological and paleontological investigations, including those for the Thornhill Burial Mounds, in the Environmental Protection Plan.

(2) Enbridge shall, in the event that previously unidentified archaeological or heritage resources are discovered:

a) immediately cease work at the location of the discovery and notify responsible provincial authorities; and b) resume work only after approval is granted by the responsible provincial authority.

(3) On or before the 31 of January of each of the first five (5) years following the commencement of the operation of the Pipeline, Enbridge shall file with the Board, and

43 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

make available on its website for informational purposes, a post-construction environmental report that:

a) identifies on a map or diagram the location of any environmental issues which arose during construction; b) discusses the effectiveness of the mitigation applied during construction and the methodology used to assess the effectiveness of mitigation; c) identifies the current status of the issues identified (including those raised by landowners), and whether those issues are resolved or unresolved; and d) provides proposed measures and timelines Enbridge shall implement to address any unresolved concerns. The report shall address, but not be limited to, issues pertaining to soil productivity on cultivated lands, weeds, reclamation of native prairie, and plant species of special concern.

(4) Enbridge shall, 30 days prior to construction, file with the Board and the consulted Aboriginal parties, an update on its consultation with Aboriginal parties, including but not limited to:

(a) consultation with Battleford Agency Tribal Chiefs Inc. and the Métis Nation – Saskatchewan; (b) concerns raised by Aboriginal parties and a description of how Enbridge is addressing or will address those concerns.

(5) Enbridge shall file with the Board, and make available on its website for informational purposes, at least 60 days prior to construction in the area of the Thornhill Burial Mounds, a report on the consultations it carried out with Aboriginal groups concerning the Thornhill Burial Mounds that:

a) summarizes which Aboriginal groups were consulted and their concerns; and b) states how Enbridge proposes to respond to those concerns.

(6) If concerns arise through the consultations undertaken pursuant to Recommendation (5) concerning the Thornhill Burial Mounds then, within 60 days after construction in the area of the Thornhill Burial Mounds, Enbridge shall file with the Board, and make available on its website for informational purposes, a report on the consultations it carried out with Aboriginal groups that:

a) identifies any concerns arising from construction activities that have taken place within the area of the Thornhill Burial Mounds; and b) identifies how Enbridge is responding, or has responded, to those concerns.

44 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

(7) Enbridge shall hydrostatically pressure test the Pipeline in compliance with the Canadian Standards Association Z662, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, 2007 requirements and shall submit the results to the Board as part of its application for Leave to Open.

(8) Enbridge shall develop the joining programs for the Project and file them with the Board at least 60 days prior to the commencement of any welding activities to which the programs relate. The joining programs shall include:

a) the requirements for the qualification of welders; b) the requirements for the qualification and duties of welding inspectors; c) the welding techniques and processes Enbridge will be using; d) the welding procedure specifications and procedure qualification records; e) the welding procedure specifications for welding on in-service pipelines (where applicable); f) the non-destructive examination procedures, and supporting procedure qualification records, which detail the ultrasonic and/or radiographic techniques and processes Enbridge will be using, for each welding technique; g) the defect acceptance criteria for each type of weld (i.e., production, tie-in and repair); h) an explanation of how the defect acceptance criteria were determined; and i) any additional information which supports the joining program.

(9) Enbridge shall file with the Board the following programs and manuals within the time specified.

a) Comprehensive health and safety plan - 60 days prior to construction; and b) Field pressure testing program - 14 days prior to pressure test.

(10) Enbridge shall cause the approved Project to be designed, located, constructed, installed, and operated in accordance with the specifications, standards and other information referred to in its application or as otherwise agreed to during questioning in the OH-4-2007 proceeding or in its related submissions.

(11) Within six (6) months after commencement of operation of the Project:

a) Enbridge shall conduct an emergency response exercise at its South Saskatchewan River crossing and relevant downstream control points with the objectives of testing:

i) emergency response procedures, including response times; ii) training of company personnel; iii) communications systems;

45 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

iv) response equipment; v) safety procedures; and vi) effectiveness of its liaison and continuing education programs.

b) Enbridge shall notify the Board, at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the emergency response exercise, of the following:

i) the date(s) and location(s) of the exercise; ii) the type of exercise; iii) the exercise scenario; iv) the proposed participants in the exercise; v) the objectives of the exercise; and vi) the evaluation criteria.

c) Enbridge shall file with the Board, within sixty (60) days after the emergency response exercise outlined in a), a final report on the exercise including:

i) the results of the exercise ii) how the exercise achieved its objectives; iii) areas for improvement; and iv) steps to be taken to correct deficiencies.

(12) Enbridge shall file with the Board for approval, at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction, an updated Project-specific Environmental Protection Plan (EPP). The EPP shall describe all environmental protection procedures, and mitigation and monitoring commitments, as set out in the application or as otherwise agreed to during questioning, in its related submissions or through consultations with other government agencies. Construction shall not commence until Enbridge has received approval of its EPP from the Board.

10.0 THE NEB’S CONCLUSION The NEB is of the view that, with the implementation of Enbridge’s environmental protection procedures and mitigation measures, and the NEB’s recommendations, the proposed Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

46 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

11.0 NEB CONTACT Claudine Dutil-Berry Secretary National Energy Board 444 Seventh Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0X8 Phone: 1-800-899-1265 Facsimile: 1-877-288-8803 [email protected]

47 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

APPENDIX 1 Scope of the Environmental Assessment (as Determined in June 2007)

File OF-Fac-Oil-E101-2006-04 01 28 June 2007

To: Distribution List (attached)

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) Proposed Alberta Clipper Pipeline Project Scope of the Environmental Assessment Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

On 31 May 2007, the National Energy Board requested comments from the public on the draft scope of environmental assessment for the proposed Alberta Clipper Pipeline Project.

The Board received a letter from the City of Saskatoon (the City) noting its concerns regarding Enbridge’s proposed crossing of the South Saskatchewan River and any potential contamination of the River, which serves as the City’s drinking water supply. The Board is of the view that the scope, as drafted, allows for effective consideration of the City’s concerns. Accordingly, the Board has not made any changes to the draft scope in this regard.

The Board, Transport Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration are responsible authorities (RAs) pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) for the proposed Project. The RAs have determined the scope of the environmental assessment, as attached to this letter.

The Board notes that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has also declared itself as a RA for the project. DFO has stated that it will identify a scope of project that meets its regulatory responsibilities pursuant to the Fisheries Act and the CEA Act and that directly relates to effects to fish and fish habitat resulting from construction of the pipeline. DFO’s role in the environmental assessment is discussed further in Section 1.0 of the attached scope.

Yours truly,

David Young Acting Secretary

Attachments

48 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) Proposed Alberta Clipper Pipeline Project Scope of the Environmental Assessment Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) is proposing to construct and operate the Alberta Clipper Pipeline Project (the Project). A Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) to construct and operate the proposed Project would be required and the Project would be subject to an environmental screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act).

The Canadian portion of the Alberta Clipper Pipeline would entail the construction of approximately 1 074 km of new 914 mm (NPS 36-inch OD) diameter pipeline between Enbridge’s Hardisty Terminal and the Canada – United States border near Gretna, Manitoba. The Alberta Clipper Pipeline would have an initial capacity of 71 500 m3 (450,000 barrels) per day. The Project would also include related physical works and activities such as the construction of receipt tankage, pumping units and other terminalling facilities at the Hardisty Terminal and the construction of new pump units between Hardisty and Gretna. Except for a new pump station near Regina, Saskatchewan, these new pump units would be located at existing Enbridge pump station facilities.

The Alberta Clipper Pipeline route would abut the existing Enbridge right of way for most of its length, but approximately 22.5 km of new right of way that is not alongside and contiguous to an existing right of way would be required. A number of watercourse crossings would also be required including the South Saskatchewan and Qu’Appelle rivers in Saskatchewan and the Souris and Cypress rivers in Manitoba.

On 24 October 2006, Enbridge filed a Preliminary Information Package with the Board regarding the proposed Project. The intent of the Preliminary Information Package was to initiate the environmental assessment (EA) process pursuant to the CEA Act. The following departments subsequently identified themselves as having responsibilities or an interest under the CEA Act in the EA of the proposed Project:

• National Energy Board - required to conduct an EA under the CEA Act (Responsible Authority (RA)) • Transport Canada, Navigable Waters - RA • Indian and Northern Affairs Canada - RA • Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration - RA • Department of Fisheries and Oceans – RA and in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge (Federal Authority (FA)) • Environment Canada – FA • Health Canada – FA

49 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

• Canadian Transportation Agency – FA • Natural Resources Canada - FA

Subsequent to identifying itself as a RA, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans clarified that it would identify a scope of project that meets its regulatory responsibilities pursuant to the Fisheries Act and the CEA Act and that directly relates to effects to fish and fish habitat resulting from construction of the pipeline. Subsequently, DFO would undertake a screening level assessment and the scope of the project would be associated with the waterbody crossings where Authorizations pursuant to the Fisheries Act may be necessary. DFO also confirmed that it would be acting in a FA capacity for the broader scope of the environmental assessment, as outlined in this document, and would provide expert advice as necessary and would work closely with the other RAs and FAs throughout the environmental assessment process.

The Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan also expressed an interest in monitoring and participating in the EA coordination process although Provincial EA legislation is not triggered.

The scope of the EA was established in accordance with the CEA Act and the CEA Act Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements which state that the RAs shall establish the scope of the EA after consulting with FAs. The Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan also reviewed the draft scope.

2.0 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

2.1 Scope of the Project

The scope of the Project as determined for the purposes of the EA includes the various components of the Project as described by Enbridge in its 24 October 2006 Preliminary Information Package, and its letter dated 3 May 2007, both of which were submitted to the National Energy Board.

The scope of the Project includes construction, operation, maintenance and foreseeable changes, and where relevant, the abandonment, decommissioning and rehabilitation of sites relating to the entire Project, and specifically, the following physical works and activities:

Pipeline

The Project involves the construction of approximately 1 074 km of 914 mm (NPS 36-inch OD) diameter pipeline from the Enbridge Hardisty Terminal in Alberta to the Canada – United States border near Gretna, Manitoba. The new pipeline would, for the most part, run parallel to or within the existing Enbridge mainline right of way. The existing Enbridge mainline right of way in Canada varies from as narrow as 18.3 m to as wide as 36 m. Additional easement required for the Project would result in a uniform right of way that is consistently 36 m wide for the majority of the pipeline corridor. Enbridge stated that it expected that no more than 22.5 km of new right

50 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report of way that is not alongside and contiguous with an existing right of way would be required for the Project near the areas of Milden, Regina, and Kipling, Saskatchewan and Wawanesa, Manitoba.

Pump Stations

Nine permanent pump stations would be required in Canada. Eight of these stations would be built within Enbridge’s existing pump station boundaries within the existing fence line adjacent to existing facilities on parallel pipelines. No new property would be required. One new building would be required at each of these stations, an Electrical Switchgear Building (ESB). One new pump station would be constructed on new land near Regina, Saskatchewan. The pump station would be similar physically to those already in service. All stations would be 2 x 5,500 HP variable frequency drive controlled pumping units except the station at Hardisty, Alberta which would be 4 x 5,500 HP variable frequency drive.

Canadian Terminalling Facilities

At the initiating point, the Enbridge Hardisty Terminal near Hardisty, Alberta, the following new facilities would be required: • Manifold connections; • Custody transfer metering and prover; • Booster pumps; and • Receipt tankage (6 x 200,000 barrels (working volume) on existing Enbridge lands).

The extension of existing access roads to the above new facilities on the existing terminal site would also be required.

Staging areas, temporary construction workspace, access roads, work camps, if required, and equipment laydown areas are also included in the scope of the Project.

It should be noted that any additional modifications or decommissioning/abandonment activities would be subject to future examination under the NEB Act and consequently, under the CEA Act, as appropriate. Therefore, at this time, these activities will be examined in a broad context only.

Navigable Watercourse Crossings

Additionally, for greater clarity, the scope of the Project includes the crossings of navigable watercourses.

2.2 Factors to be Considered

The EA will include a consideration of the following factors listed in paragraphs 16(1)(a) to (d) of the CEA Act:

51 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

a) the environmental effects of the Project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the Project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; b) the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a); c) comments from the public that are received during the environmental assessment process; and d) measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the Project.

In addition, pursuant to paragraph 16(1)(e), the EA will consider alternative means of carrying out the Project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means.

For further clarity, subsection 2(1) of the CEA Act defines ‘environmental effect’ as:

a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change that the project may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species as defined in the Species at Risk Act; b) any effect of any change referred to in paragraph (a) on i. health and socio-economic conditions, ii. physical and cultural heritage, iii. the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, iv. any structure, site or thing that is of historical, paleontological, or architectural significance; or c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change or effect occurs within or outside Canada.

2.3 Scope of Factors to be Considered

The EA will consider the potential effects of the proposed Project within spatial and temporal boundaries within which the Project may potentially interact with, and have an effect on components of the environment. These boundaries will vary with the issues and factors considered, and will include:

• construction, operation, decommissioning, site rehabilitation and abandonment or other undertakings that are proposed by the Proponent or that are likely to be carried out in relation to the physical works proposed by the Proponent, including mitigation and habitat replacement measures. • the natural variation of a population or ecological component. • the timing of sensitive life cycle phases of wildlife species in relation to the scheduling of the Project.

52 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

• the time required for an effect to become evident. • the time required for a population or ecological component to recover from an effect and return to a pre-effect condition, including the estimated degree of recovery. • the area affected by the Project. • the area within which a population or ecological component functions and within which a Project effect may be felt.

For the purpose of the assessment of the cumulative environmental effects, the consideration of other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out will include those for which formal plans or applications have been made.

53 Alberta Clipper Expansion Project Draft NEB Environmental Screening Report

APPENDIX 2 Evaluation of Significance Criteria Definitions The table below defines the criteria used by the NEB for evaluating the significance of the potential effects discussed in Section 9.3.2. These criteria and definitions are largely based on information used by Enbridge; however, the NEB added its own criteria, ‘Evaluation of Significance’, and included a corresponding definition.

Criteria Definition Frequency (how Accidental: Occurs rarely over assessment period often would the Isolated: Confined to specified period event that caused the effect occur) Occasional: Occurs intermittently and sporadically over assessment period Periodic: Occurs intermittently but repeatedly over the construction and operations period Continuous: Occurs continually over the construction and operations period Duration (period of Immediate: Event duration is limited to less than or equal to two days the event causing Short-term: Event duration is longer than two days but less than or equal to one year the effect) Medium-term: Event duration is longer than one year but less than or equal to 10 years

Long-term: Event duration extends longer than 10 years Geographic Extent Footprint: The land area disturbed by the Project, construction and reclamation activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., permanent pipeline RoW, temporary construction workspace, temporary stockpile sites, temporary staging areas, facility sites) Local: The area which could potentially be affected by construction and reclamation activities beyond the construction RoW including associated physical works and activities. The local boundary varies with the discipline and issue being considered (e.g., for assessment of the effects of noise on wildlife, the area affected by noise (i.e., 2 km buffer) from the source is included in this boundary) Region: The area extending beyond the local boundary. The boundary for the region also varies with the discipline and the issue being considered (e.g., for socio-economic analysis, regional boundaries include large communities that would be used as construction offices or regional municipal district boundaries) Province: The area extending beyond regional or administrative boundaries, but confined to MB, SK or AB (e.g., provincial permitting boundaries, etc.) Transboundary: The area extending outside Canada Reversibility Immediate: Effect is alleviated in less than or equal to two days Short-term: Greater than two days and less than or equal to one year to reverse effect Medium-term: Greater than one year and less than or equal to 10 years to reverse effect Long-term: Greater than 10 years to reverse effects Permanent: Residual effects are irreversible Magnitude Negligible: Residual effects are not detectable Low: Potential effects are detectable, but well within environmental and/or social standards or tolerance Medium: Potential effects are detectable and approaching, but below environmental and/or regulatory standards or tolerance High: Potential effects are beyond environmental/social standards or tolerance Evaluation of “Likely to be significant” would typically involve effects having a high probability of Significance occurrence, are irreversible and of high magnitude.

54