Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment for the Enbridge Pipelines Inc

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. LINE 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT

December 2012 8207

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. TERA Environmental Consultants Edmonton, Alberta Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Ph: 403-265-2885

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 58 of the NEB Act for approval to construct and operate a new pipeline (the Line 2 Replacement pipeline) and Section 44 of the Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR), 1999 for approval to deactivate a segment of the existing Enbridge Line 2 pipeline (the Project).

Enbridge currently operates the existing Line 2 pipeline which originates at Enbridge’s existing Edmonton Terminal and transports crude oil southeast to the United States border near Gretna, Manitoba. The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline will replace the segment of pipeline between the Edmonton Terminal at SE 5-53-23 W4M and a new block valve located near Joseph Lake at SW 1-50-22 W4M. The proposed 609 mm outside diameter (Nominal Pipe Size [NPS] 24) pipeline will transport crude oil and is approximately 38.2 km in length (Figure 1.1). The proposed pipeline route is contiguous to existing linear disturbances for approximately 94% of its length. The construction right-of-way will typically be 43 m wide, including an approximately 10-13 m wide permanent easement, with the remainder of the width to be used as temporary workspace.

In accordance with Canadian Standards Association Z662, the deactivated segment of the existing Line 2 pipeline will be cleaned, purged, filled with nitrogen gas and left in place. Deactivation activities will be focused at both ends of the deactivated segment where excavation is required. Enbridge anticipates that all work will occur mostly within existing Enbridge property or the existing Enbridge right-of-way (i.e., at the Edmonton Terminal and at the end of the Project at SW 1-50-22 W4M). In the event that additional temporary workspace is required, Enbridge will acquire it appropriately.

Pending regulatory approval, construction of the replacement pipeline is anticipated to commence in August 2013 and be in-service by Q4 2013. Deactivation of the existing Line 2 pipeline segment will follow the Line 2 Replacement in-service date. Design, construction and operation of the Project will be in compliance with all applicable codes, standards and regulations.

Enbridge commissioned TERA Environmental Consultants to prepare an Environmental and Socio- Economic Assessment (ESA). The ESA has been prepared in accordance with the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004) under Section 58 of the NEB Act and Section 44 of the OPR, 1999. Pursuant to Guide A.2.1 and G.2 of the NEB Filing Manual, the level of detail contained in this report corresponds to the nature and magnitude of the anticipated environmental impacts and has been prepared to meet NEB requirements for a Section 58 and 44 Application. An ESA checklist of NEB Filing Manual requirements is provided in Section 1.8 of this ESA. In addition, the ESA has been prepared to meet the requirements of the NEB Online Application System guidance. Biophysical reports are provided as appendices of this report and include soils, aquatics, wildlife, vegetation, rare plants and wetlands. A Historical Resources Impact Assessment was also conducted in October 2012 and will be submitted to Alberta Culture for clearance under the Historical Resources Act. Supplemental filings will include a review of wetlands, vegetation, weeds and wildlife at selected locations not surveyed in 2012.

The Project is located in an agricultural setting in Strathcona and Leduc counties in the Province of Alberta. The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route traverses the Transportation / Utilities Corridor (TUC) for 10 km (26%), provincial Crown land for 0.8 km (2%) and the remaining 27.4 km (72%) of its length is privately-owned land. Communities located in the vicinity of the Project include Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Camrose and Tofield. Land use along the proposed pipeline route consists of cultivated land (28.6%), treed-pasture (27.2%), tame pasture (21.2%), hay (14.1%), treed areas (6.3%), open water (1%), tree nursery (0.8%) and disturbed land (0.8%).

The nearest communities to the Project are: the City of Edmonton, located approximately 200 m west of KPE 4.0 (SW 21-52-23 W4M); Sherwood Park, crossed by the pipeline route from KP 0.0 (SE 5-53-23 W4M) to KPHA 0.4 (SW 28-52-23 W4M); the City of Leduc, located approximately 19.8 km southwest of KPE 10 (NW 33-51-23 W4M); the City of Camrose, located approximately 31.2 km southeast of KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M); and the Town of Tofield, located approximately 26.9 km east of KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M). There are many residences located within 1 km of the proposed construction right-of-way within the City of Edmonton.

Page i

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

The Aboriginal Engagement Program for the Project was guided by Enbridge’s Aboriginal Affairs Group. The focus of Enbridge’s primary consultation activities has been with the following Aboriginal communities: Alexander First Nation; Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation; Enoch Cree Nation; Ermineskin Cree Nation; Louis Bull Tribe; Montana First Nation; Paul First Nation; Samson Cree Nation; Métis Nation of Alberta – Zone 2 Regional Council; and Métis Nation of Alberta – Zone 4 Regional Council. The Aboriginal Engagement Program for the Project has included, and will continue to involve, a number of activities including: mail outs of letters and Project information materials; Aboriginal community open houses (where requested and reasonably appropriate); face-to-face meetings and Project presentations; community visits and information drop offs; and on-going issues tracking and follow-up activities.

There are three proposed watercourse crossings identified along the proposed pipeline route: Goldbar Creek at KPE 1.8 (SW 28-52-23 W4M); Mill Creek at KPE 14.4 (SE 35-51-23 W4M); and Irvine Creek at KP 24.2 (SW 33-50-22 W4M). Goldbar and Mill creeks are uncoded mapped Class D watercourses, while Irvine Creek is an unmapped Class D watercourse. All three watercourses have no restricted activity period from a fisheries perspective.

The 2012 wetland field surveys confirmed that 61 wetlands (3.6 km in total length) are crossed by the Project, comprising approximately 9.3% of the proposed pipeline route. Wetlands crossed include 12 Class IV wetlands, 32 Class III wetlands, 6 Class II wetlands and 11 shrubby swamps. This list will be updated following a supplemental wetlands evaluation planned for 2013 targeting locations where access was not available in 2012 and where route revisions occurred subsequent to the summer 2012 field season.

Potential environmental and socio-economic concerns identified by the ESA include issues relating to: topsoil conservation and maintenance of soil productivity on agricultural lands; soil erosion control; potential introduction and spread of weeds and clubroot disease; and potential effects on wildlife. Wetland and watercourse crossings have been located and construction of the crossings has been planned in a manner which will minimize bank and slope instability, as well as the potential for future erosion. Specific environmental measures will be identified for watercourse and wetland crossing construction, soils handling and maintenance of agricultural productivity of soils. These measures, along with other protection measures designed to mitigate the potential environmental and socio-economic effects, are identified in the Environmental Protection Plan within Appendix 1 of the ESA and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets in Appendix 2 of the ESA.

The environmental concerns associated with the Line 2 Replacement Project are routinely encountered during pipeline construction and deactivation in an agricultural area. The ESA concludes that the environmental management strategy, which includes appropriate routing, mitigation for potential and cumulative effects, environmental inspection and orientation, will avoid, eliminate and/or reduce the severity of potential effects arising from the Project; therefore, this ESA concludes that there are no situations that would result in a significant residual environmental effect or a significant residual socio- economic effect, as defined in the ESA. Similarly, there are no situations where that would result in a significant cumulative environmental effect or a significant cumulative socio-economic effect, as defined in the ESA.

Page ii

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Project Justification ...... 1-8 1.3 Regulatory Framework ...... 1-8 1.4 Scope of the Project ...... 1-8 1.5 Scope of the Assessment ...... 1-9 1.6 Report Structure ...... 1-10 1.7 Background Information ...... 1-11 1.8 Concordance with the NEB Filing Manual ...... 1-12 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Purpose ...... 2-1 2.2 Alternative Means ...... 2-1 2.3 Location of the Project ...... 2-1 2.4 Project Footprint ...... 2-2 2.4.1 Line 2 Replacement Pipeline ...... 2-2 2.4.2 Line 2 Deactivation ...... 2-2 2.5 Project Components...... 2-2 2.5.1 Line 2 Replacement ...... 2-2 2.5.2 Line 2 Deactivation ...... 2-3 2.6 Construction ...... 2-4 2.6.1 Line 2 Replacement Pipeline ...... 2-4 2.6.2 Line 2 Deactivation ...... 2-5 2.6.3 Estimated Workforce Requirements ...... 2-6 2.6.4 Environmental Permits/Approvals ...... 2-6 2.6.5 Project Schedule ...... 2-7 2.7 Operation and Maintenance ...... 2-8 2.8 Decommissioning and Abandonment of the Line 2 Replacement Pipeline ...... 2-8 3.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Consultation Objectives and Methods ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Consultation Objectives ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Methods ...... 3-1 3.3 Consultation and Engagement Outcomes ...... 3-2 4.0 ROUTE SELECTION ...... 4-1 4.1 Control Points ...... 4-1 4.2 Routing Considerations ...... 4-1 4.3 Proposed Pipeline Route ...... 4-2 4.4 Temporary Facility Siting ...... 4-3 4.4.1 Temporary Facilities ...... 4-3 4.4.2 Siting Criteria ...... 4-3 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING ...... 5-1 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 6-1 6.1 Methodology ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries...... 6-2 6.1.2 Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements ...... 6-4 6.1.3 Potential Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects ...... 6-5 6.1.4 Mitigative and Enhancement Measures ...... 6-5

Page iii

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

6.1.5 Residual Effects ...... 6-5 6.1.6 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects...... 6-6 6.2 Effects Assessment - Pipeline Construction and Operation ...... 6-7 6.2.1 Physical and Meteorological Environment ...... 6-7 6.2.1.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-7 6.2.1.2 Physical Environment Context ...... 6-10 6.2.1.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-10 6.2.1.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-11 6.2.1.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-11 6.2.1.6 Summary ...... 6-13 6.2.2 Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-13 6.2.2.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-13 6.2.2.2 Soil Context ...... 6-13 6.2.2.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-14 6.2.2.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-21 6.2.2.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-22 6.2.2.6 Summary ...... 6-26 6.2.3 Water Quality and Quantity ...... 6-27 6.2.3.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-27 6.2.3.2 Ecological Context ...... 6-29 6.2.3.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-29 6.2.3.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-32 6.2.3.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-32 6.2.3.6 Summary ...... 6-36 6.2.4 Air Emissions ...... 6-36 6.2.4.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-36 6.2.4.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-38 6.2.4.3 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-38 6.2.4.4 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-39 6.2.4.5 Summary ...... 6-40 6.2.5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions...... 6-40 6.2.5.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-40 6.2.5.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-40 6.2.5.3 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-41 6.2.5.4 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-41 6.2.5.5 Summary ...... 6-42 6.2.6 Acoustic Environment ...... 6-42 6.2.6.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-42 6.2.6.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-44 6.2.6.3 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-45 6.2.6.4 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-45 6.2.6.5 Summary ...... 6-46 6.2.7 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 6-46 6.2.7.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-46 6.2.7.2 Ecological Context ...... 6-46 6.2.7.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-47 6.2.7.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-53 6.2.7.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-53 6.2.7.6 Summary ...... 6-58 6.2.8 Wetlands ...... 6-59 6.2.8.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-59 6.2.8.2 Ecological Context ...... 6-61 6.2.8.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-61 6.2.8.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-64

Page iv

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

6.2.8.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-65 6.2.8.6 Summary ...... 6-68 6.2.9 Vegetation ...... 6-68 6.2.9.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-68 6.2.9.2 Ecological Context ...... 6-71 6.2.9.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-71 6.2.9.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-73 6.2.9.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-74 6.2.9.6 Summary ...... 6-78 6.2.10 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-78 6.2.10.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-78 6.2.10.2 Ecological Context ...... 6-80 6.2.10.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-80 6.2.10.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-84 6.2.10.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-84 6.2.10.6 Summary ...... 6-87 6.2.11 Species at Risk ...... 6-88 6.2.11.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-88 6.2.11.2 Ecological Context ...... 6-90 6.2.11.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-91 6.2.11.4 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-94 6.2.11.5 Summary ...... 6-99 6.2.12 Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 6-99 6.2.12.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-99 6.2.12.2 Land Use Plans ...... 6-100 6.2.12.3 Land and Resource Use ...... 6-102 6.2.12.4 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-102 6.2.12.5 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-105 6.2.12.6 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-105 6.2.12.7 Summary ...... 6-108 6.2.13 Heritage Resources ...... 6-109 6.2.13.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-109 6.2.13.2 Historical Resources Context ...... 6-111 6.2.13.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-111 6.2.13.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-112 6.2.13.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-112 6.2.13.6 Summary ...... 6-113 6.2.14 Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 6-113 6.2.14.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-113 6.2.14.2 Traditional Land and Resource Use Context ...... 6-114 6.2.14.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-114 6.2.14.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-115 6.2.14.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-115 6.2.14.6 Summary ...... 6-117 6.2.15 Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 6-117 6.2.15.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-117 6.2.15.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-117 6.2.15.3 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-118 6.2.15.4 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-118 6.2.15.5 Summary ...... 6-120 6.2.16 Human Health ...... 6-120 6.2.16.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-120 6.2.16.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-123 6.2.16.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-123

Page v

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

6.2.16.2 Summary ...... 6-124 6.2.17 Infrastructure and Services ...... 6-125 6.2.17.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-125 6.2.17.2 Socio-economic Context ...... 6-125 6.2.17.3 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-125 6.2.17.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-127 6.2.17.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-127 6.2.17.6 Summary ...... 6-129 6.2.18 Employment and Economy ...... 6-129 6.2.18.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-129 6.2.18.2 Socio-Economic Context ...... 6-130 6.2.18.3 Potential Effects and Enhancement Measures ...... 6-130 6.2.18.4 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-131 6.2.18.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-131 6.2.18.6 Summary ...... 6-133 6.2.19 Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 6-133 6.2.19.1 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6-133 6.2.19.2 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-133 6.2.19.3 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-137 6.2.19.4 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-138 6.2.19.5 Summary ...... 6-141 6.3 Effects Assessment – Pipeline Facilities ...... 6-141 6.4 Effects Assessment – Temporary Facilities for Construction ...... 6-142 6.5 Effects Assessment – Line 2 Deactivation ...... 6-142 6.5.1.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-143 6.5.1.2 Residual Effects ...... 6-148 6.5.1.3 Significance of Residual Effects...... 6-149 6.5.1.4 Summary ...... 6-151 6.6 Effects Assessment - Decommissioning and Abandonment ...... 6-151 6.7 Changes to the Project Caused by the Environment ...... 6-152 6.7.1 Potential Effects and Mitigative Measures ...... 6-152 6.7.2 Potential Residual Effects ...... 6-153 6.7.3 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects...... 6-153 6.7.4 Summary ...... 6-155 6.8 Summary of Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment ...... 6-155 6.8.1 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment ...... 6-155 6.8.2 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Effects of Changes to the Project Caused by the Environment ...... 6-156 7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 7-1 7.1 Methodology ...... 7-1 7.1.1 Identification of Residual Effects of the Project ...... 7-1 7.1.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries...... 7-2 7.1.3 Existing Activities and Known Future Developments ...... 7-3 7.1.4 Identification of Potential Cumulative Effects ...... 7-9 7.1.5 Mitigative Measures ...... 7-11 7.1.6 Determination of Significance ...... 7-11 7.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment – Project Construction and Operation ...... 7-11 7.2.1 Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 7-12 7.2.2 Water Quality and Quantity ...... 7-13 7.2.3 Air Emissions ...... 7-16 7.2.4 Acoustic Environment ...... 7-18 7.2.5 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 7-19

Page vi

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

7.2.6 Wetlands ...... 7-23 7.2.7 Vegetation ...... 7-25 7.2.8 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 7-32 7.2.9 Species at Risk ...... 7-38 7.2.10 Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 7-43 7.2.11 Heritage Resources ...... 7-46 7.2.12 Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 7-46 7.2.13 Social and Cultural Well-being ...... 7-46 7.2.14 Human Health ...... 7-48 7.2.15 Infrastructure and Services ...... 7-50 7.2.16 Employment and Economy ...... 7-53 7.2.17 Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 7-53 7.3 Summary of the Assessment of Potential Cumulative Effects ...... 7-54 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STRATEGY ...... 8-1 8.1 Enbridge’s Commitment to Environmental Protection ...... 8-1 8.1.1 Environmental Policy ...... 8-1 8.1.2 Neutral Footprint Plan ...... 8-1 8.2 Environmental Protection Plan ...... 8-1 8.3 Environmental Orientation ...... 8-4 8.4 Environmental Inspection ...... 8-4 8.5 Issue Monitoring ...... 8-4 9.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ...... 9-1 9.1 Construction Right-of-Way Inspection ...... 9-1 9.2 Vegetation Monitoring ...... 9-2 9.3 Post-Construction Soils Assessment ...... 9-2 9.4 Wetland Monitoring ...... 9-3 9.5 Watercourse Monitoring ...... 9-3 9.6 Criteria for Success ...... 9-4 9.7 Selection of Remedial Measures ...... 9-4 9.8 Landowner Consultation ...... 9-5 9.9 Operation and Maintenance Activities ...... 9-5 9.10 Documentation and Reporting ...... 9-5 10.0 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES ...... 10-1 10.1 Wetlands ...... 10-1 10.2 Vegetation ...... 10-1 10.3 Weed Survey ...... 10-2 10.4 Wildlife ...... 10-2 10.5 Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 10-3 10.6 Gathering Socio-Economic Related Information ...... 10-3 10.7 Environmental Review of Temporary Facilities ...... 10-3 11.0 CONCLUSION ...... 11-1 12.0 REFERENCES ...... 12-1 12.1 Personal Communications ...... 12-1 12.2 Literature Cited ...... 12-1 12.3 GIS Data ...... 12-21

Page vii

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Environmental Protection Plan ...... A1-1 Appendix 2 Environmental Alignment Sheet Package ...... A2-1 Appendix 3 Soil Survey and Reclamation Suitability Evaluation ...... A3-1 Appendix 4 Aquatic Assessment...... A4-1 Appendix 5 Wetland Evaluation ...... A5-1 Appendix 6 Vegetation Survey ...... A6-1 Appendix 7 Wildlife Report ...... A7-1 Appendix 8 Socio-Economic Supporting Study Report ...... A8-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figures 1.1 through 1.5 Regional Location ...... 1-3 Figure 6.1 Physical Environment and Soils Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-9 Figure 6.2 Aquatics Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-28 Figure 6.3 Air Quality Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-37 Figure 6.4 Acoustic Environment Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-43 Figure 6.5 Wetland Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-60 Figure 6.6 Vegetation Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-69 Figure 6.7 Wildlife Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-79 Figure 6.8 Species at Risk Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-89 Figure 6.9 Socio-Economic Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-101 Figure 6.10 Heritage Resources Study Area Boundaries ...... 6-110 Figure 7.1 Known Proposed Developments ...... 7-8 Figure 8.1 Enbridge Environmental Policy Major Projects ...... 8-2 Figure 8.2 Enbridge Environmental Policy Liquid Pipelines ...... 8-3

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Concordance With Guide A - A.2 Environment and Socio-Economic Assessment of the NEB Filing Manual ...... 1-12 Table 5.1 Summary of Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements and Considerations ...... 5-1 Table 6.1 Evaluation of the Significance of Residual Effects - Environmental and Socio- Economic Assessment Criteria ...... 6-3 Table 6.2 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on the Physical and Meteorological Environment ...... 6-10 Table 6.3 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Physical and Meteorological Environment ...... 6-12 Table 6.4 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-14 Table 6.5 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 6-23 Table 6.6 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Water Quality and Quantity ...... 6-30 Table 6.7 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Water Quality and Quantity ...... 6-33 Table 6.8 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Air Emissions ...... 6-38 Table 6.9 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Air Emissions ...... 6-39 Table 6.10 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on GHG Emissions ...... 6-41 Table 6.11 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effect of Pipeline Construction and Operation on GHG Emissions ...... 6-41 Table 6.12 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Acoustic Environment ...... 6-44

Page viii

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

Table 6.13 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Acoustic Environment ...... 6-45 Table 6.14 Summary of Proposed Watercourse Crossings Along the Proposed Pipeline Route ...... 6-48 Table 6.15 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 6-49 Table 6.16 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 6-54 Table 6.17 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wetlands ...... 6-62 Table 6.18 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wetlands ...... 6-65 Table 6.19 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Vegetation ...... 6-72 Table 6.20 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Vegetation ...... 6-74 Table 6.21 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-82 Table 6.22 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 6-84 Table 6.23 Rationale For Indicator Species Selection ...... 6-90 Table 6.24 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Species at Risk ...... 6-91 Table 6.25 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Species at Risk ...... 6-94 Table 6.26 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 6-102 Table 6.27 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Human Occupancy and Resource Use...... 6-106 Table 6.28 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction on Heritage Resources ...... 6-112 Table 6.29 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction on Heritage Resources ...... 6-112 Table 6.30 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 6-114 Table 6.31 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Traditional Land and Resource Use ...... 6-116 Table 6.32 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 6-118 Table 6.33 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Social and Cultural Well-Being ...... 6-119 Table 6.34 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Human Health ...... 6-121 Table 6.35 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Human Health ...... 6-123 Table 6.36 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Infrastructure and Services ...... 6-126 Table 6.37 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Pipeline Construction and Operation on Infrastructure and Services ...... 6-128 Table 6.38 Potential Effects, Enhancement Measures and Residual Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Employment and Economy ...... 6-130 Table 6.39 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Project Construction and Operation on Employment and Economy ...... 6-131 Table 6.40 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions During Pipeline Construction and Operation ...... 6-135 Table 6.41 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Accidents and Malfunctions During Pipeline Construction and Operation ...... 6-138 Table 6.42 Element Interaction With the Segment of the Line 2 Deactivation ...... 6-142

Page ix

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

Table 6.43 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of the Segment of the Line 2 Deactivation ...... 6-143 Table 6.44 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects For the Segment of the Line 2 Deactivation...... 6-150 Table 6.45 Potential Effects, Mitigative Measures and Residual Effects of Changes to the Project Caused By the Environment ...... 6-152 Table 6.46 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects of Changes to the Project Caused By the Environment ...... 6-154 Table 7.1A Known Future Linear Developments Within the Line 2 Replacement Project RSA and LSA of Various Elements ...... 7-7 Table 7.1B Known Future Facility Developments Within the Line 2 Replacement Project RSA and LSA of Various Elements ...... 7-7 Table 7.2 Land Use Features and Assumptions Used for the Quantitative Analysis ...... 7-10 Table 7.3 Existing and New Areal Disturbance In the Aquatics, Wetland, Wildlife and Species At Risk RSAs ...... 7-10 Table 7.4 Existing and New Areal Disturbance in the Vegetation RSA ...... 7-11 Table 7.5 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Soil and Soil Productivity Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-12 Table 7.6 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effect on Soil and Soil Productivity ...... 7-13 Table 7.7 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Water Quality and Quantity Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-14 Table 7.8 Significance Evaluations of Potential Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Project on Water Quality and Quantity ...... 7-16 Table 7.9 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Air Emissions Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-17 Table 7.10 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effect on Air Emissions ...... 7-18 Table 7.11 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on the Acoustic Environment Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-18 Table 7.12 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effect on the Acoustic Environment ...... 7-19 Table 7.13 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Fish and Fish Habitat Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-20 Table 7.14 Estimated Disturbances of Riparian Areas Within the Aquatics RSA ...... 7-21 Table 7.15 Significance Evaluation of Cumulative Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 7-23 Table 7.16 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Wetlands Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-23 Table 7.17 Cumulative Disturbance of Wetlands in the Wetland LSA and RSA ...... 7-25 Table 7.18 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effect on Wetlands ...... 7-25 Table 7.19 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Vegetation Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-26 Table 7.20 Cumulative Disturbance of Native Vegetation in the Vegetation RSA ...... 7-27 Table 7.21 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effects on Vegetation ...... 7-31 Table 7.22 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-32 Table 7.23 Predicted Residual Change In Habitat Types Within the Wildlife RSA ...... 7-34 Table 7.24 Cumulative Disturbance of Wildlife Habitat in the Wildlife RSA ...... 7-35 Table 7.25 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 7-37 Table 7.26 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Species at Risk Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-38 Table 7.27 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effect on Species at Risk ...... 7-42 Table 7.28 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Human Occupancy and Resource Use Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-43 Table 7.29 Significance Evaluation of Cumulative Effects on Human Occupancy and Resource Use ...... 7-46 Table 7.30 Potential Residual Effect of the Project on Social and Cultural Well-Being Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-47

Page x

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

Table 7.31 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effect on Social and Cultural Well- Being ...... 7-48 Table 7.32 Potential Residual Effect of the Project on Human Health Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-48 Table 7.33 Significance Evaluation of the Cumulative Effect on Human Health ...... 7-49 Table 7.34 Potential Residual Effects of the Project on Infrastructure and Services Considered for the Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 7-50 Table 7.35 Significance Evaluations of Cumulative Effects on Infrastructure and Services ...... 7-53

LIST OF PLATES Plate 1 View southeast across the proposed right-of-way within the TUC in NW 28-52-23 W4M at approximately KPE 1 (September 2012)...... 5-12 Plate 2 View south along a portion of the right-of-way within the TUC in NW 16-52-23 W4M at approximately KPE 4.3 (September 2012)...... 5-12 Plate 3 View northwest along a portion of the right-of-way in the vicinity of Looking Back Lake in NE 15-50-22 W4M at approximately KP 29.5 (September 2012)...... 5-13 Plate 4 View south along the right-of-way along the Crown land in NW 11-50-22 W4M at approximately KP 30.5 (September 2012)...... 5-13

Page xi

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AADT average annual daily traffic AARD Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development ACIMS Alberta Conservation Information Management System AENV Alberta Environment AEP Alberta Environmental Protection AEPEA Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act AESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development AGCC Alberta Ground Cover Classification Alliance Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership asl above sea level ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development ATPR Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation ATR Automated Traffic Recorder AUC Alberta Utilities Commission bbl/d barrels per day BHI Beaver Hills Initiative CAC criteria air contaminants CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEA Canadian Environmental Assessment (applies to Act and Agency) CEP Capacity Expansion Project CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act CLI Canada Land Inventory cm centimetre(s) CN Canadian National Railway Company CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide COP Code of Practice COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CPR Canadian Pacific Railway C&R Conservation and Reclamation Plan CSA Canadian Standards Association CWS Canadian Wildlife Services DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada DUC Ducks Unlimited Canada EGC Environmental Guidelines for Construction Enbridge Enbridge Pipelines Inc. EO element occurrence EPP Environmental Protection Plan ERCB Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board ERP Emergency Response Plan ESA Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment FEARO Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office Fiera Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. Footprint Footprint Study Area FPWC Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation FRL Fish Research Licence FWMIS Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System GHG greenhouse gas(es) GPS global positioning system ha hectares HADD harmful alteration, disruption or destruction HDD horizontal directional drill HRIA Historical Resources Impact Assessment HRV Historic Resource Value IBA Important Bird Area IMP Integrity Management Program IPL Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc.

Page xii

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

IR Information Requests JFP Joffre Feedstock Pipeline km kilometre(s) KP Kilometre Post KPE Kilometre Post – Edmonton reroute (carried over from the previous Enbridge Line 4 Extension Project) KPH Kilometre Post – current Project route revisions (a series of minor route revisions: KPHA, KPHB, KPHC and KPHD) LCC Land Cover Classification LSA Local Study Area m metre(s) m3/d cubic metres per day Mentiga Mentiga Pedology Consultants Ltd. mm millimetre(s) NEB National Energy Board NGO non-government organization NGTL Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. NOx nitrogen oxides NPS Nominal Pipe Size NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material NRCan Natural Resources Canada NWWG National Wetland Working Group OAS Online Application System O.D. outside diameter O&MP Operating and Maintenance Procedures OPR Onshore Pipeline Regulations OS Operational Statement PCEM Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring Pedocan Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. PEMA Priority Environment Management System PLA Pipeline Agreement PM particulate matter PNT Protective Notation QAES Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialist RAP restricted activity period RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police RSA Regional Study Area SARA Species at Risk Act SEP II System Expansion Project II SME Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment SOx sulphur oxides Spectra Spectra Energy Corp. TERA TERA Environmental Consultants the Project Line 2 Replacement TLRU traditional land and resource use TSS total suspended solids TUC Transportation/Utilities Corridor VEC valued ecosystem component VOC volatile organic compound WHMIS Workplace Hazardous Information System WHU Wildlife Habitat Unit WMU Wildlife Management Unit ZOI zone of influence

Page xiii

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

GLOSSARY

Agricultural land: Land that has been tilled and is used for production of crops or livestock grazing.

Construction right-of-way: An area comprised of the easement of the right-of-way and temporary workspace in which the construction of a pipeline will occur. For this Project, the construction right-of-way will typically be 45 m wide, consisting of an approximately 10-13 m wide permanent easement plus an approximately 29-33 m wide temporary workspace. The construction right-of-way does not include additional/extra temporary workspace (defined below).

Cultivated land: Lands that are under annual crop or fallow at the time of construction.

Easement Agreement: An agreement that provides Enbridge with a limited right to use property owned by another party to construct, own and operate a pipeline within the agreed upon area. The agreement sets out the rights and obligations of both Enbridge and the party in regards to the use of the lands and will often specify restrictions on the use of the land.

Environmental Inspector: Field personnel who along with other responsibilities, monitor construction or operational work to ensure environmental compliance with permits, regulatory approvals, applicable Enbridge environmental plans and environmental contract specifications and other environmental requirements.

Footprint: The land area directly disturbed by Project construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., construction right-of-way, remote sectionalizing valves, permanent facilities, temporary workspace and temporary facilities).

Hay land: Land that has been tilled and reseeded with an agronomic seed mix (e.g., alfalfa) and is harvested one or more times a year for a hay crop.

Heritage resources: Any work of nature or of humans that is primarily of value for palaeontology, prehistoric, historic, cultural, natural, scientific or aesthetic interest including, but not limited to, a palaeontological, archaeological, prehistoric, historic or natural site, structure or object.

Invasive species: Flora, fauna or micro-organisms which are not considered native to a particular location (e.g., have been introduced) which have resulted in adverse environmental, ecological or economical effects. May also include native species that disrupt the natural setting by out-competing other species.

Landowner: The person in whose name a Certificate of Title has been issued pursuant to the applicable Land Titles legislation.

Native prairie: Areas of unbroken or recovered grassland or parkland that are dominated by native vegetation.

Native vegetation: Species that would historically and naturally occur in an area, rather than introduced agronomics or invasive species.

Noxious weed: A designation for weeds that have the ability to spread rapidly and cause severe crop losses and economic hardship. These weeds must be controlled to prevent further establishment and spread.

Occupant/Tenant: A person, other than the registered landowner, who is in actual possession of the land or entitled to be in possession of the land.

Pasture (tame): Pasture that has been tilled and reseeded by the landowner. Generally reseeded with an agronomic rather than a native seed mix. These fields are generally used for grazing rather than for producing a hay crop. This land use might also be known as improved or seeded pasture.

Pasture (treed): Pasture or native prairie that is dominated by treed species. This land use might also be known as bush-pasture.

Page xiv

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

Rare species: A species identified as having small population numbers within its natural geographical range. Species may be considered rare at the local, regional, provincial/state, national or global level.

Reclamation: The process of returning land to its former use or other productive uses.

Rollback: The practice of respreading available woody debris flat on the ground over disturbed lands. Rollback should be used in accordance with accepted best management practices and applicable regulatory requirements.

Shoo-fly: Temporary access routes or bypasses used to move equipment or travel around portions of the right-of-way.

Slash: Debris left as a result of forest or other vegetation being altered by forestry practices or other land use activities (e.g., timber harvesting, road construction and right-of-way clearing). Includes material such as logs, splinters or chips, tree branches and tops, uprooted stumps, and broken or uprooted trees and shrubs.

Temporary Workspace: Additional land required temporarily during the construction phase of a project for multiple users and may be located adjacent, or near to, the right-of-way.

Additional or Extra Temporary Workspace: Additional land acquired directly adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way required on a short-term basis for the period of time to facilitate construction; usually required at locations where there will be a deeper or wider trench (i.e., bellhole locations, foreign line crossings, sidebends and tie-ins), alternative soils handling requirements (i.e., three-lift soils handling) or where the right-of-way width has been narrowed (i.e., due to an adjacent roadway or pipeline right-of-way).

Topsoil: The uppermost layer of soil, which is a better growth medium than the underlying subsoil. For the purpose of this assessment and soil handling recommendations, topsoil is typically the Ah, Ap or Ahe horizon, as identified during the soil evaluation (Appendix 3). On lands that lack this horizon, the topsoil layer to be salvaged is the upper 15-20 cm on treed and treed-pasture lands or the upper surface material (40 cm) on wetlands, as that is where most of the seed bank and root stock is found.

Watercourse: A waterbody with defined bed and banks, whether or not water is continuously present, as per the Codes of Practice under the Alberta Water Act and determined in the field by a Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialist. Project watercourses are defined and classified in the Aquatic Assessment (Appendix 4).

Wetland: Land with the water table at, near or above the ground surface and/or saturated long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and other biological activity adapted to wet environments. Project wetlands are further defined and classified in the Wetland Evaluation Report (Appendix 5).

Page xv

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) is applying to the National Energy Board (NEB) under Section 58 of the NEB Act for approval to construct and operate a new pipeline (the Line 2 Replacement pipeline) and Section 44 of the Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR), 1999 for approval to deactivate a segment of the existing Enbridge Line 2 pipeline (the Project).

Enbridge currently operates the existing Line 2 pipeline which originates at Enbridge’s existing Edmonton Terminal and transports crude oil southeast to the United States border near Gretna, Manitoba. The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline will replace the segment of pipeline between the Edmonton Terminal at SE 5-53-23 W4M and a new block valve located near Joseph Lake at SW 1-50-22 W4M. The proposed 609 mm outside diameter (O.D.) (NPS 24) pipeline will transport crude oil and is approximately 38.2 km in length (Figure 1.1). The proposed pipeline route is contiguous to existing linear disturbances for approximately 94% of its length.

The construction right-of-way will typically be 43 m wide, including an approximately 10-13 m wide permanent easement with the remainder of the width to be used as temporary workspace. When the permanent easement and temporary workspace are taken in the entirety, it is referred to as the construction right-of-way. Additional temporary workspace will be required at select locations to accommodate construction activities (e.g., road, buried utility line and water crossings, sharp sidebends, tie-ins and locations where extra depth of cover or heavy grading is necessary). Enbridge will also acquire temporary workspace for Project construction needs such as stockpile sites, shoo-flies and contractor staging areas.

In accordance with Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662, the deactivated segment of the existing Line 2 pipeline will be cleaned, purged, filled with nitrogen gas and left in place. Deactivation activities will be focused at both ends of the deactivated segment where excavation is required. Enbridge anticipates that work will occur mostly within existing Enbridge property or the existing Enbridge right-of-way (i.e., at the Edmonton Terminal and at the end of the Project at SW 1-50-22 W4M). In the event that additional temporary workspace is required, Enbridge will acquire it appropriately.

Enbridge commissioned TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA) to prepare an Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA). The ESA has been prepared in accordance with the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004) under Section 58 of the NEB Act and Section 44 of the OPR, 1999. Pursuant to Guide A.2.1 and G.2 of the NEB Filing Manual, the level of detail contained in this report corresponds to the nature and magnitude of the anticipated environmental impacts and has been prepared to meet NEB requirements for a Section 58 and 44 Application. An ESA checklist of NEB Filing Manual requirements is provided in Section 1.8 of this ESA. In addition, the ESA has been prepared to meet the requirements of the NEB Online Application System (OAS) guidance.

Locations along the proposed pipeline route are referred to by Kilometre Post (KP). KPs are approximately 1 km apart and are primarily used to describe features along the pipeline route for construction, operation and maintenance purposes. The system of KPs used in this ESA are Environment KPs, which have a long history of use along this Enbridge mainline right-of-way, including the Enbridge Line 4 Extension Project, the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. (IPL) System Expansion Project II (SEP II) and the IPL Capacity Expansion Project (CEP). Historically and in the Environment KP system, KP 0.0 is located at the Enbridge Edmonton Terminal, KP 176.0 is at Hardisty Terminal and KP 1245.2 is located at

Page 1-1

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207 the United States border near Gretna, Manitoba. Using this Environment KP system, the currently proposed pipeline route begins at KP 0.0 at the Edmonton Terminal (SE 5-53-23 W4M) and ends at KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M), following the Enbridge mainline right-of-way that has been in place since the early 1950s.

A substantial pipeline route deviation from the Enbridge mainline was adopted to use the Transportation/Utilities Corridor (TUC) during the Line 4 Extension Project in 2007 from SE 32-52-23 W4M to SW 36-51-23 W4M and the deviation was identified at the time of that project as a subset of the KP numbering system, KPE 0.0 to KPE 15.4 (the E is for Edmonton reroute). This deviation numbering system has also been carried forward to the current Project. Additional deviations that are greater than approximately 60 m from the existing mainline right-of-way have been assigned with their own reroute numbering system for the current Project, as KPHA 0.0 to KPHA 1.0 (SW 28-52-23 W4M to NW 21-52-23 W4M), KPHB 0.0 to KPHB 0.8 (SW 4-52-23 W4M to NW 33-51-23 W4M) and so on. The Environment KP numbering system and all deviations greater than 60 m from the mainline right-of-way are shown in detail on Figures 1.2 through 1.5.

Using Environment KPs allows for historic consistency on the location of site-specific environmental and socio-economic issues, and facilitates cross referencing of previous Enbridge ESA’s, supporting studies, permits, Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring (PCEM) reports and Information Requests (IRs) that use this system. Since the Environmental Alignment Sheets will be used during construction by those using a separate set of Project KPs, both Environment KPs and Project KPs are shown on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of this ESA). For additional clarity, legal locations and, where appropriate, Global Positioning System co-ordinates of site-specific issues are included in tables and text throughout the ESA.

The following field surveys were conducted along the proposed pipeline route during the summer of 2012.

• An aquatic assessment (Appendix 4 of this ESA) was conducted by TERA from July 12 to 27, 2012 at select locations along the proposed route identified during a desktop review.

• A wetland evaluation (Appendix 5 of this ESA) was conducted by TERA from August 1 to 9, 2012 at select locations along the proposed route identified during a desktop review.

• An early season vegetation survey was conducted by TERA on July 2, 3, 9 and 13, 2012 at select locations along the proposed route identified during a desktop review. A late season vegetation survey was conducted by TERA from August 10 to 12, 2012. Results of both surveys are provided in Appendix 6 of this ESA. A weed survey will be conducted on agricultural lands prior to construction in summer 2013 (see Section 9.0 of this ESA).

• A wildlife survey (Appendix 7 of this ESA) was conducted by TERA on July 13, 25 and 26, 2012 at select locations along the proposed route identified during a desktop review.

• A Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA) was conducted by TERA from October 2 to 19, 2012 at select locations along the proposed route under Archaeological Research Permit 12-217. A palaeontological assessment was also conducted on October 7 and 8, 2012 as directed by Alberta Culture under Permit 12-041. The results will be submitted to Alberta Culture for review and approval under the Historical Resources Act.

A desktop soil study and desktop socio-economic study (including consultation with stakeholders and attendance at open houses) were also conducted for the Project and are provided in Appendices 3 and 8 of this ESA, respectively. Supplements to the above-listed surveys are planned during summer 2013 as needed to assess previously inaccessible segments of the proposed right-of-way and route revisions that occurred subsequent to the field season. Supplemental surveys are discussed in Section 10 of this ESA.

Page 1-2

Fort CFB Astotin Chipman S EDMONTON t 633 Saskatchewan Lake ur UV 54 ge

on St. P

R o iv i ¯ e 15 n R r Albert os C UV t s r e- eek au December 2012 44 x- Elk Island UV pi ns National k 28 C ree UV Ol re m C dm ek Park FIGURE 1.1 Ati Big Lake an Cr eek 830 Tawayik UV REGIONAL LOCATION Lake 53 Spruce Strathcona Science REPORT FOR THE ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Sherwood UV16 Grove Provincial Park LINE 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT Park UV21 16A 0 UV ( M o 8207 Edmonton rr ( Edmonton Terminal NE 5-53-23 W4M isC HA r ee UV628 M 834 k i Wye Road UV ll ( Environment KP C re Yekau ek ! Line 2 Replacement Lake Antler Cooking Lake-Blackfoot Environment KPH Deviation STONY Big Island 52 r Lake Provincial 216 e PLAIN 135 UV v E0 - E15.4 Lake 824 Recreation Area i UV Line 2 Replacement Pipeline R Sherwood Park 184 n Wanisan UV a UV627 Natural Area Beaverhill Lake w e Lake Existing Line 2 Pipeline h HB Heritage Rangeland c 13 629 t UV a ( Natural Area k ( s Wakinagan UV892 Highway 60 a UV630 UV S Creek h t ( r 15 Beaverhill Road o N Cooking Hastings Mcfadden Lake Lake Lake reek Railway 51 gs C Lake st in ek Cawes eC H a re vin r eek 14 nut C Ir ( UV he Watercourse Lake 20 tc a B C

l a Waterbody c k Devon m HC k Tofield e u Beaumont e d City/Town r 626 C ( UV C 19 r 25 g e n UV e i k 625

r UV Indian Reserve u j Ministik n o Looking Lake Park/Natural Areas C 2 ater

UV Clearw Creek 50 k Lake ( 30 e e Military

r HD

C d Oliver u Joseph Lake

m Leduc Saunders Calmar e ( Lake SCALE: 1:250,000 t 39 i Telford Lake UV h SW 1-50-22 W4M 33.8 UV833 km W Lake 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 (All Locations Approximate) 26 25 623 24 Ord Lake Levering UV 23 Lake 22 21 20 49 A reek m is kC Miquelon UTM Zone 12N Lakes Hillshade: TERA Environmental Consultants, derived from UV814 Hay Natural Resources Canada 2008; Existing Pipelines: IHS Inc. UV795 UV2A UV617 2012; Roads & Railways: Natural Resources Canada 2012; Big Hay Louis Hydrography: IHS Inc. 2004; Municipal Boundaries: AltaLIS Lake 2012; Military: IHS Inc. 2011; Lake Indian Reserves: Government of Canada 2012; Parks: Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation 2011. d x m . Missing 2

0 Although there is no reason to believe that there are

V 48 E

R Lake _ any errors associated with the data used to generate w e i v r C this product or in the product itself, users of these data e am v ro O se _ Wizard l Cr are advised that errors in the data may be present. a ee n k o i g Lake 822 Demay

e Coal

R UV _ 1

0 Lake

_ Lake Mapped By: LA Checked By: TB g i

F 616 _ Millet 7 UV 0 2 8 t t8207_Fig1HA_to_HD_sections.mxd ¯ 5 2 - 2 2 3 0 W 5 2 4 - 2 M 2 3 9 W 4 M 7 1 0 1 5 2 7 8 9 1 6 1 8 H A

0 . 9 6 5 1 2 1 3 4 5 H A

2 6 1 1 1 4 3 6 5 2 - 2 2 3 1 W 5 2 4 - M 2 2 3 8 W 4 M 1 0 1 5 2 7 9 1 6 1 8 R t E h A a E N i a n l s 0 P t r

V y h p e R O

M o r e

o I F a E o R u R r a a d d O d r g d L 5 O o T p m v u UV h I s 0 R r i p 8

c N , N s

s F o

! t e 9 t R

h n

P O a E © d M 2 d o a e t 1 s D

R i

r ( R o

B l s r 2 t 0 V A

a w E e h i o n O y 0 a

t l

a a T N c R :

e l i l

s J t i y t

t L L D o H a E u o

E T h

: A o n e

t s f P N e e H E C

c e o

r S

F K I

I r a c a d a L m S C

T m p T W P R R R H E K E E L I o E r t I t e e r i

A x n n A r G r P H e a e o

i L n u i w a r d a o o g N o R m o i i v v m a s a H s L s r O g e C g l i U E 8 h 2 d r p i o

n w i i a s E s d t O

t e

i B e r r p k 0 E w i S

u t 2 E o 2 n l s o u : h b M o o r R n r

a y o

0 e R R c

S s

U y

n M y T r 1 a 0 A n n R g t

y e t r

E e c t : c p e P

h : y I h m m a E S

e 7 t T t e

r 7 d L J s i H a D i

e r

e o E e i u p t p p 1 o

T i

, o c

E e e y s n R

2 5

r P

e n r G N l A d u d b e E . n

e n n

v a

e o o 0 i W 0 e l 2 a r D p a e i l c i t t R E T

0 c a c x f n

t l 1 t e e , 9 o e K K e i d C i E

a a e

e u , m l P P 2 P s P r s P P h i 3

V v 2 n

k m

s u i H a I 2 e C 0 R O e e p e 0

e P I s S t 0 c a 0 n

r A e O 1 e e D t S p k 1 n E s t y l h 2 d ) i e

e a T 0 a

J L n o a

b c d ; v d E t I S I f e t e o e O i

C a B t

L p h t g h y 2 N T E i A r e e : 0 o e

e S s S n M 1 r n 4 B s e

e e 2 0 I e

E r . N d a n 0 M a L a r t t C e . S t e a

t8207_Fig1HA_to_HD_sections.mxd ¯ 9 1 6 1 8 9 1 2 1 3 4 5 1 2 H 1 B 1 1

4 0 3 . 6 8 1 1 2 H B

0 K P E 1 0 5 2 - 2 3 4 W 4 M 1 0 1 5 2 7 1 0 9 1 6 1 8 9

KP E 11 1 2 1 3 4 5 1 2 R t E h A a E N i a n l s 0 P t r

V y h p e R O

M o r e

o I F a E o R u R r a a d d O d r g d L 5 O o T p m v u UV h I s 0 R r i p 8

c N , N s

s F o

! t e 9 t R

h n

P O a E © d M 2 d o a e t 1 s D

R i

r ( R o

B l s r 2 t 0 V A

a w E e h i o n O y 0 a

t l

a a T N c R :

e l i l

s J t i y t

t L L D o H a E u o

E T h

: A o n e

t s f P N e e H E C

c e o

r S

F K I

I r a c a d a L m C

T m S p T W P R R R H E K E E L I o E r t I t e e r i

A x n n A r G r P e H a e o

i L n u i w a r d a o o g N o R m o i i v v m a s a H s L s r O g e C g l i U 8 h E 2 d r p i o

n w i i a s E s d t O

t e

i B e r r p k 0 E w i S

u t 2 o 2 n l s o E u : h b M o o r R n r

a y o

0 e R R c

S s

U y

n M y r 1 a T 0 A n n R g t

y e t r

E e c t : c p e P

h : y I h m m a E S

7 t T t e

r 7 d L J s i a D i

H e r

e o E e i u p t p p 1 o

T i

, o c

E e e y s n R

2 5

r P

e n r G N l d B u d b e E . n

e n n

v a

e o o 0 i W 0 e l 3 a r D p a e i l c i t t R E T

0 c a c x f n

t l 1 t e e , 9 o e K K e i d C i E

a a e

e u , m l P P 2 P s P r s P P h i 3

V v 2 n

k m

s u i H a I 2 e C 0 R O e e p e 0

e P I s S t 0 c a 0 n

r A e O 1 e e D t S p k 1 n E s t y l h 2 d ) i e

e a T 0 a

J L n o a

b c d ; v d E t I S I f e t e o e O i

C a B t

L p h t g h y 2 N T E i A r e e : 0 o e

e S s S n M 1 r n 4 B s e

e e 2 0 I e

E r . N d a n 0 M a L a r t t C e . S t e a

t8207_Fig1HA_to_HD_sections.mxd ¯ 4 5 5 1 2 1 3 3 6 6 1 1 1 4 5 5 0 1 - - 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 W W 4 4 M M

K P 2

7 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 5 H C

0 1 8 9 H 1 C 6

0 . 6 7 4 1 5 2 1 3

K P 2 4 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 5 0 5 1 - 2 - 3 2 2 3 W 2 3 W 4 4 M M 2 1 7 0 R t E h A a E N i a n l s 0 P t r

V y h p e R O

M o r e

o I F a E o R u R r a a d d O d r g d L 5 O o T p m v u UV h I s 0 R r i p 8

c N , N s

s F o

! t e 9 t R

h n

P O a E © d M 2 d o a e t 1 s D

R i

r ( R o

B l s r 2 t 0 V A

a w E e h i o n O y 0 a

t l

a a T N c R :

e l i l

s J t i y t

t L L D o H a E u o

E T h

: A o n e

t s f P N e e H E C

c e o

r S

F K I

I r a c a d a L m C

T m S p T W P R R R H E K E E L I o E r t I t e e r i

A x n n A r G r P e a e o H

i L n u i w a r d a o o g N o R m o i i v v m a s a H s L s r O g e C g l i U 8 h E 2 d r p i o

n w i i a s E s d t O

t e

i B e r r p k 0 E w i S

u t 2 o 2 n l s o u : E h b M o o r R n r

a y o

0 e R R c

S s

U y

n M y r 1 a 0 A T n n R g t

y e t r

E e c t : c p e P

h : y I h m m a E S

e 7

t T t e

r 7 d L J s i a D i

H e r

e o E e i u p t p p 1 o

T i

, o c

E e e y s n R

2 5

r P

e n r G N l d u C d b e E . n

e n n

v a

e o o 0 i W 0 e l 4 a r D p a e i l c i t t R E T

0 c a c x f n

t l 1 t e e , 9 o e K K e i d C i E

a a e

e u , m l P P 2 P s P r s P P h i 3

V v 2 n

k m

s u i H a I 2 e C 0 R O e e p e 0

e P I s S t 0 c a 0 n

r A e O 1 e e D t S p k 1 n E s t y l h 2 d ) i e

e a T 0 a

J L n o a

b c d ; v d E t I S I f e t e o e O i

C a B t

L p h t g h y 2 N T E i A r e e : 0 o e

e S s S n M 1 r n 4 B s e

e e 2 0 I e

E r . N d a n 0 M a L a r t t C e . S t e a

t8207_Fig1HA_to_HD_sections.mxd ¯ 1 6 1 8 9 1 6 1 3 4 5 1 2 1 3 H D

0 1 4 3 6 1 1 1 4 H 5 D 0

- 1 2 1 . 2 1 1 W 7 4 M

K P

3 2 2 7 1 0 1 5 1 8 9 1 6 4 5 1 2 1 3 R t E h A a E N i a n l s 0 P t r

V y h p e R O

M o r e

o I F a E o R u R r a a d d O d r g d L 5 O o T p m v u UV h I s 0 R r i p 8

c N , N s

s F o

! t e 9 t R

h n

P O a E © d M 2 d o a e t 1 s D

R i

r ( R o

B l s r 2 t 0 V A

a w E e h i o n O y 0 a

t l

a a T N c R :

e l i l

s J t i y t

t L L D o H a E u o

E T h

: A o n e

t s f P N e e H E C

c e o

r S

F K I

I r a c a d a L m S C

T m p T W P R R R H E K E E L I o E r t I t e e r i

A x n n A r G r P H e a e o

i L n u i w a r d a o o g N o R m o i i v v m a s a H s L s r O g e C g l i U E 8 h 2 d r p i o

n w i i a s E s d t O

t e

i B e r r p k 0 E w i S

u t 2 E o 2 n l s o u : h b M o o r R n r

a y o

0 e R R c

S s

U y

n M y T r 1 a 0 A n n R g t

y e t r

E e c t : c p e P

h : y I h m m a E S

e 7 t T t e

r 7 d L J s i H a D i

e r

e o E e i u p t p p 1 o

T i

, o c

E e e y s n R

2 5

r P

e n r G N l D d u d b e E . n

e n n

v a

e o o 0 i W 0 e l 5 a r D p a e i l c i t t R E T

0 c a c x f n

t l 1 t e e , 9 o e K K e i d C i E

a a e

e u , m l P P 2 P s P r s P P h i 3

V v 2 n

k m

s u i H a I 2 e C 0 R O e e p e 0

e P I s S t 0 c a 0 n

r A e O 1 e e D t S p k 1 n E s t y l h 2 d ) i e

e a T 0 a

J L n o a

b c d ; v d E t I S I f e t e o e O i

C a B t

L p h t g h y 2 N T E i A r e e : 0 o e

e S s S n M 1 r n 4 B s e

e e 2 0 I e

E r . N d a n 0 M a L a r t t C e . S t e a

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

1.2 Project Justification The Project is required to replace an approximately 33.8 km long segment of pipeline along the existing Line 2 pipeline. The proposed Project is being undertaken as part of Enbridge’s on-going pipeline integrity management and maintenance program. Through the course of regular inspection of this segment of the existing Line 2 pipeline, a proactive decision to replace this segment has been made to eliminate the requirement for numerous maintenance digs over the next 15 years.

The Line 2 Replacement pipeline route will follow the previous Enbridge Line 4 Extension Project route, which uses the TUC and avoids a more densely populated area as well as a future growth area within Strathcona County. In addition, it will deactivate a line in a densely populated area reducing the need for integrity work in those communities.

1.3 Regulatory Framework The Project requires NEB approval pursuant to Section 58 of the NEB Act for the Line 2 Replacement pipeline and Section 44 of the OPR, 1999 for the deactivation of the segment of the existing Line 2 pipeline. Application to the NEB involves the preparation and filing of an ESA following guidance and requirements contained in the NEB Filing Manual. Enbridge directed TERA to prepare this ESA having regard for the NEB Filing Manual, OAS guidance, and concerns identified through regulatory, stakeholder and public consultation. An environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEA) Act 2012 is not required since the Project is not considered a “designated project” under the CEA Act 2012.

Additional federal authorities that may have regulatory interests associated with the Project are listed below, although regulatory responsibilities are evolving and actual interests will be confirmed through continuous consultation with the regulators:

• Environment Canada pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) pursuant to the Fisheries Act.

In addition to the federal authorities, provincial authorities are also anticipated to have environmental interests in the Project, including:

• Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) regarding surface disposition approvals on Crown land pursuant to the Public Lands Act;

• AESRD regarding watercourse and wetland crossings and for hydrostatic testing under the Water Act, the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (AEPEA) and the Wildlife Act (i.e., beaver dam removals); and

• Alberta Culture pursuant to the Historical Resources Act.

A list of principal permits, authorizations and notifications is presented in Table 2.2 of this ESA.

1.4 Scope of the Project The scope of the Project includes the activities and components required to carry out the Project and allow it to proceed (NEB 2004). This combination of activities and components includes:

• construction of the 38.2 km proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline from the Edmonton Terminal at SE 5-53-23 W4M to the new proposed block valve located near Joseph Lake at SW 1-50-22 W4M; • deactivation of a 33.8 km segment of the existing Line 2 pipeline between the Edmonton Terminal at SE 5-53-23 W4M and the new proposed block valve located near Joseph Lake at SW 1-50-22 W4M; • use of temporary facilities (e.g., construction office sites, pipe stockpile sites and equipment storage sites); and

Page 1-8

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

• use of existing infrastructure (i.e., right-of-way and access roads). 1.5 Scope of the Assessment Scoping is the process of identifying the physical works and activities to include within the ESA and what biophysical and socio-economic elements are likely to be affected. Proper scoping reduces the risk of including unimportant or irrelevant information in the assessment or excluding factors that should be assessed (NEB 2004). This environmental assessment takes into account the factors listed in the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004) and pertinent issues and concerns identified through regulatory, stakeholder and public consultation and Aboriginal engagement.

For projects such as this that do not require an environmental assessment under the CEA Act, the NEB usually determines the scope of the assessment by applying similar scoping principles to those applied under the CEA Act (NEB 2004). The environmental assessment considers the following factors:

• 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;

• the significance of the above effects;

• changes to the Project caused by the environment;

• comments from the public;

• measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental or socio-economic effects of the Project; and

• other matter relevant to the assessment, such as the need for the Project, the NEB may require to be considered.

The environmental assessment considers the potential effects of the Project on the environment in the context of defined spatial and temporal boundaries. These boundaries will vary with the issues and environmental elements or interactions to be considered and will reflect:

• the construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and abandonment phases of the proposed physical works and physical activities;

• the natural variation of a population or ecological or socio-economic component;

• the timing of sensitive life cycle phases in relation to the scheduling of the proposed physical works and physical activities;

• the time required for an effect to become evident;

• the time required for a population or ecological or socio-economic component to recover from an effect and return to a pre-effect condition;

• the area directly affected by proposed physical works and physical activities; and

• the area in which a population or ecological or socio-economic component functions and within which a Project effect may be felt.

The spatial boundaries considered one or more of the following areas, as summarized below and described in detail in Section 6.2 of this ESA (including figures).

• A Footprint Study Area (Footprint) made up of the area directly disturbed by pipeline construction and clean-up activities, including associated physical works and activities (i.e., construction right-of-way, remote sectionalizing valves, additional temporary workspace and temporary facilities).

Page 1-9

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

• A Local Study Area (LSA) that varies with the environmental and socio economic element being considered. For each element considered, the LSA is established based on the zone of influence (ZOI) within which plants, animals and humans are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. Detailed discussions regarding the LSA and associated rationale are provided in Sections 6.2 of this ESA. For social elements (e.g., human occupancy and resource use), local potential effects are related to specific communities considered in the socio-economic assessment. The communities considered were based on whether there would be direct potential effects, such as a physical, social or economic interaction between the Project and the community or community residents and their economic, social or cultural resources and pursuits.

• A Regional Study Area (RSA) that consists of the area extending beyond the LSA boundary and varies with the environmental and socio-economic element being considered. For each element considered, a separate spatial RSA boundary was established in consideration of the regional effects of the Project on the individual element. Further rationale for the establishment of the Project RSAs is provided in Section 6.2 of this ESA.

• A Provincial Area that extends beyond regional or administrative boundaries but confined to Alberta (e.g., provincial permitting boundaries, etc.).

• A National Area extending beyond Alberta but confined to Canada.

• An International Area extending beyond Canada.

Reconnaissance and detailed field studies, as well as desktop studies, considered at a minimum the proposed construction right-of-way, as well as known areas where temporary workspace would be necessary. In the event an area of interest was identified (e.g., rare plant or wildlife feature such as a mineral lick), field crews expanded their survey when appropriate and where allowed (no greater than the LSA) to identify the extent and distribution of the area of interest, and ensured a comprehensive assessment of the environmental feature(s) being surveyed.

The environmental assessment also considered cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with existing activities and known future developments that have been or will be carried out.

1.6 Report Structure This ESA has been prepared considering the guidance and requirements provided by the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004). In addition, the mitigative measures, contingency plans, monitoring plans and Environmental Alignment Sheets included in this ESA will form the foundation for future environmental management activities by Enbridge, particularly during the construction phase of the pipeline. This ESA is divided into the following sections.

1.0 Introduction: Provides a description of the need and justification for the Project, background information pertaining to the Project, the regulatory framework and the purpose of the document.

2.0 Project Description: Provides a description of the Project components, alternative means to the Project and Project phases.

3.0 Consultation and Engagement: Provides a summary of public involvement and Aboriginal engagement activities conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA. The consultation conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA was designed to complement the Enbridge consultation and engagement program.

4.0 Route Selection: Provides a detailed description of the proposed pipeline routing process.

5.0 Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting: Provides a description of the current environmental and socio-economic conditions present along the proposed pipeline route.

6.0 Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects Assessment: Describes the effects assessment and identifies the potential environmental and socio-economic effects, mitigation measures and potential residual effects as well as an assessment of their significance.

Page 1-10

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

7.0 Cumulative Effects Assessment: Provides a description of the potential cumulative effects as well as an assessment of their significance.

8.0 Environmental Compliance Strategy: Provides a description of the environmental policies, orientation, inspection and monitoring policies to be applied during the construction and operation of the Project.

9.0 Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring: Describes the plans for the environmental monitoring program to be conducted following construction, including criteria for success. 10.0 Supplemental Studies: Provides a description of the plans to carry out supplemental studies. 11.0 Conclusions: Provides conclusions related to the significance of potential residual environmental and cumulative effects associated with the Project. 1.7 Background Information The proposed pipeline route is contiguous to existing linear disturbances for approximately 94% of its length. Approximately 5% of the length is adjacent to a powerline within the TUC and 89% of the length is alongside an existing Enbridge pipeline right-of-way, either parallel to the existing Enbridge mainline right-of-way that was constructed in the early 1950s or parallel to the Line 4 Extension Project where deviations from the mainline were necessary. Information from the following historical documents regarding the existing Enbridge pipeline rights-of-way was reviewed to prepare the ESA.

• The Enbridge Line 4 Extension Project was an NEB Section 52 Application prepared in 2007 and approved in 2008 (NEB Certificate OH-5-2007). All documents are available publicly on the NEB website including the NEB Reasons for Decision, an ESA, supplementary studies and numerous supporting documents. Directly relevant information was also documented in the annual PCEM reports from 2009 through 2012. The Line 4 Extension Project is adjacent to the proposed route for 89% of the proposed route.

• The IPL SEP II Project was subject to NEB review and approval under NEB Certificate OH-1-96. The ESA, As-Built and post-construction monitoring reports were reviewed. Supporting field studies that were available include a rare plant and rare plant community survey and wildlife survey. The SEP II Project is relevant to the current Project from approximately KP 22.1 (SE 4-51-22 W4M) to KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M).

• The IPL CEP Project involved assessment of the Enbridge mainline right-of-way between Edmonton and Regina in 1993, although the portion west of Hardisty was not subject to NEB review and approval. Relevant supporting studies reviewed include a soil survey, rare plant survey, fish and fish habitat survey and an HRIA. The IPL CEP Project is relevant to the current Project from KP 0.0 (SE 5-53-23 W4M) to KP 1.4 (SE 32-52-23 W4M) and KP 12.6 (SW 36-51-23 W4M) to KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M) but does not include the portion of the proposed route within the TUC.

• The segment of the Edmonton reroute (i.e., KPE 0.5 to KPE 10.0 or SW 33-52-23 W4M to NW 33-51-23 W4M) within the TUC parallels not only the Line 4 Extension Project but also the NOVA Chemicals Joffre Feedstock Pipeline (JFP) right-of-way. The NOVA Chemicals JFP project was also subject to many environmental studies as part of a Conservation and Reclamation Plan (C&R) that was approved by Alberta Environment in 2004. Soils sampling data from this Project were incorporated into the soil report for the Project. PCEM reports were also reviewed.

In addition to the historical documents from previous projects noted above, Enbridge continues to monitor and maintain its existing pipelines on a regular basis and has worked to maintain relationships with landowners and local communities over the years. The volumes of data collected along the proposed pipeline route have resulted in an increased knowledge base and greater confidence in the effectiveness of the mitigation implemented during construction programs.

Page 1-11

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

1.8 Concordance with the NEB Filing Manual Table 1.1 of this ESA identifies where information requested in the NEB Filing Manual may be found in this ESA.

TABLE 1.1

CONCORDANCE WITH GUIDE A - A.2 ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE NEB FILING MANUAL

Filing In Application? Not in Application? Manual No. Filing Requirement References Explanation A.2.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING 1. Identify and describe the current biophysical and socio-economic setting of each ESA Section 5.0 --- element (i.e., baseline information) in the area where the Project is to be carried out. 2. Describe which biophysical or socio-economic elements in the study area are of ESA Section 5.0 --- ecological, economic or human importance and require more detailed analysis taking into account the results of consultation (see Table A-1 for examples). Where circumstances require more detailed information in an ESA see: • Table A-2 – Filing Requirements for Biophysical Elements; or • Table A-3 – Filing Requirements for Socio-Economic Elements. 3. Provide supporting evidence (e.g., references to scientific literature, local and ESA Sections 5.0 and 6.0, --- traditional knowledge, previous environmental assessment and monitoring ESA Appendices 3 through 8 reports) for: • information and data collected; • analysis completed; • conclusions reached; and • the extent of professional judgment or experience relied upon in meeting these information requirements and the rationale for that extent of reliance. 4. Describe and substantiate the methods used for any surveys, such as those ESA Section 5.0, --- pertaining to wildlife, plants, species at risk or species of special status, soils, ESA Appendices 3 through 8 heritage resources or traditional land use, and for establishing the baseline setting for the atmospheric and acoustic environment. 5. Applicants must consult with other expert federal, provincial or territorial ESA Sections 3.0 and 5.0 --- departments and other relevant authorities on requirements for baseline ESA Appendices 4 through 7 information and methods. A.2.6 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT Identification and Analysis of Effects 1. Describe the methods used to predict the effects of the Project on the biophysical ESA Section 6.0 --- and socio-economic elements, and the effects of the environment on the Project. 2. Predict the effects associated with the proposed Project, including those that ESA Section 6.0 --- could be caused by construction be caused by construction, operations, decommissioning or abandonment, as well as accidents and malfunctions. Also include effects the environment could have on the Project. For those biophysical and socio-economic elements or their valued components that require further analysis (see Table A-1), provide the detailed information outlined in Tables A-2 and A-3. Mitigation Measures for Effects 1. Describe the standard and project specific mitigation measures and their ESA Sections 6.0 and 8.0 adequacy for addressing the Project effects or clearly reference specific ESA Appendices 1 and 2 --- sections of company manuals that provide mitigation measures. Ensure that referenced manuals are current and filed with the NEB. 2. Ensure that commitments about mitigative measures will be communicated to ESA Sections 6.0 and 8.0 --- field staff for implementation through an EPP. ESA Appendix 1 3. Describe plans and measures to address potential effects of accidents and ESA Section 6.0 --- malfunctions during construction and operation of the Project. ESA Appendix 1 Evaluation of Significance 1. After taking into account any appropriate mitigation measures, identify any ESA Section 6.0 --- remaining residual effects from the Project. 2. Describe the methods and criteria used to determine the significance of adverse ESA Section 6.0 --- effects, including defining the point at which each identified cumulative effect on a valued component is considered “significant”. 3. Evaluate significance of residual adverse environmental and socio-economic ESA Section 6.0 --- effects against the defined criteria.

Page 1-12

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 1.1 Cont'd

Filing In Application? Not in Application? Manual No. Filing Requirement References Explanation 4. Evaluate the likelihood of significant, residual adverse cumulative environmental ESA Section 7.0 --- and socio-economic effects occurring and substantiate the conclusions made. A.2.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT Scoping and Analysis of Cumulative Effects 1. Identify the valued components for which residual effects are predicted and ESA Section 7.0 --- describe and justify the methods used to predict any residual results. 2. For each valued component where residual effects have been identified, describe ESA Section 7.0 --- and justify the spatial and temporal boundaries used to assess the potential cumulative effects. 3. Identify other physical works or activities that have been or will be carried out ESA Section 7.0 --- within the identified spatial and temporal boundaries for the cumulative effects assessment. 4. Identify whether the effects of those physical works or activities that have been or ESA Section 7.0 --- will be carried out would be likely to produce effects on valued components within the identified spatial and temporal boundaries. 5. Where other physical works or activities may affect the valued components for ESA Section 7.0 --- which residual effects from the applicant’s proposed project are predicted, continue the cumulative effects assessment, as follows: • consider the various components, phases and activities associated with the applicant’s project that could interact with other physical work or activities; • provide a description of the extent of the cumulative effects on valued components; and • where professional knowledge or experience is cited, explain the extent to which professional knowledge or experience was relied upon and justify how the resulting conclusions or decisions were reached. Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Effects 1. Describe the general and specific mitigation measures, beyond Project-specific ESA Section 7.0 --- mitigation already considered, that are technically and economically feasible to address the cumulative effects. Applicant’s Evaluation of Significance of Cumulative Effects 1. After taking into account any appropriate mitigation measures for cumulative ESA Section 7.0 --- effects, identify any remaining residual cumulative effects. 2. Describe the methods and criteria used to determine the significance of ESA Section 7.0 --- remaining adverse cumulative effects, including defining the point at which each identified cumulative effect on a valued component is considered “significant”. 3. Evaluate the significance of adverse residual cumulative effects against the ESA Section 7.0 --- defined criteria. 4. Evaluate the likelihood of significant, residual adverse cumulative environmental ESA Section 7.0 --- and socio-economic effects occurring and substantiate the conclusions made. A.2.8 INSPECTION, MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP 1. Describe inspection plans to ensure compliance with biophysical and ESA Sections 6.0 and 8.0 --- socio-economic commitments as required by Section 27 of the OPR-99. ESA Appendix 1 2. Evaluate the need to monitor the elements potentially affected by the Project. ESA Sections 6.0, 8.0 and 9.0 --- ESA Appendix 1 3. Evaluate the need for element-specific follow-up programs, to verify the accuracy ESA Sections 8.0 and 9.0 --- of the ESA predictions and to determine the effectiveness of any mitigation measures implemented, particularly those mitigation measures that are new or unproven or are used in vulnerable or sensitive areas. Table A-1 Circumstances and Interactions Requiring Detailed Biophysical and Socio-Economic Information Physical and meteorological environment ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Soil and soil productivity ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 3 Water quality and quantity ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 4 Air emissions ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Greenhouse gas emissions ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Acoustic environment ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Fish and fish habitat ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 4

Page 1-13

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 1.1 Cont'd

Filing In Application? Not in Application? Manual No. Filing Requirement References Explanation Wetlands ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 5 Vegetation ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 6 Wildlife and wildlife habitat ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 7 Species at Risk or species of special status and related habitat ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendices 4, 6 and 7 Human occupancy and resource use ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 8 Heritage resources ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Traditional land and resource use ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 --- Social and cultural well-being ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 8 Human health and aesthetics ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 8 Infrastructure and services ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 8 Employment and economy ESA Sections 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, --- ESA Appendix 8

Page 1-14

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section describes and identifies the purpose and need for the Project, alternative means, Project location, Project components and Project phases including planning, construction, testing and start-up, reclamation and restoration, operation, decommissioning and abandonment. Figure 1.1 (Section 1.0 of this ESA) provides an overview map of the Project.

2.1 Project Purpose The Project is required to replace an approximately 33.8 km long segment of pipeline along the existing Line 2 pipeline route. The proposed Project is being undertaken as part of Enbridge’s on-going pipeline integrity management and maintenance program. Pipeline safety, the safety of the public and workers, and the protection of the environment are Enbridge’s top priorities, and as such, through the course of regular inspections, this segment of the existing Line 2 pipeline has been identified for replacement.

2.2 Alternative Means Alternative means are the various ways that are technically and economically feasible to implement and carry out the Project (CEA Agency 2006, 2007a). These could include alternative routes and methods of development, implementation and mitigation.

Only buried pipeline options realistically meet the Project need and purpose. No existing pipelines can provide enough capacity to provide a feasible alternative for transportation between tie-in points and Line 2 continues to meet customer needs. The pipe size has been specifically selected to replace the existing pipeline. Installing a smaller pipeline is not practical since it would require oil to flow at a higher pressure to accommodate the same volumes. This would result in a number of design challenges to tie the pipeline into the existing system. The proposed pipeline will be installed using standard pipeline construction methods and mitigation measures. Due to the size of the pipe, alternative means of pipe installation (i.e., plowing-in) are not feasible.

The proposed pipeline route was chosen to parallel existing pipeline rights-of-way for approximately 89% of its length and existing linear disturbances for approximately 94% of its length. Paralleling existing Enbridge rights-of-way allows for a lower Project impact for the following reasons.

1. The existing pipeline rights-of-way can be used to a degree since Enbridge holds the disposition rights to that land and can ensure safe construction around their existing pipes. This will help reduce the potential effects by limiting the amount of new clearing necessary to install the pipeline.

2. Operation crews are able to monitor a pipeline located in a common pipeline corridor with little increase in monitoring effort.

Enbridge evaluated whether alternative routes and deviations from the existing pipeline rights-of-way could meet the Project’s need and purpose. The route selection process for the Project is discussed in Section 4.0 of this ESA.

2.3 Location of the Project The Project is located in an agricultural setting in Strathcona and Leduc counties. Communities located in the vicinity of the Project include Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Camrose and Tofield. Most of the residences in the vicinity of the proposed route are located in Edmonton and Sherwood Park at the northwest end of the proposed route. The Stony Plain Indian Reserve No. 135 is located approximately 30 km west of the Project at the Edmonton Terminal.

The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route traverses the TUC for 10 km (26%), provincial Crown land for 0.8 km (2%) and the remaining 27.4 km (72%) of its length is privately-owned land. The proposed pipeline route is contiguous to existing linear disturbances for approximately 94% of its length. Paralleling and utilizing the existing Enbridge rights-of-way was deemed preferable to reduce the amount of overall disturbance.

Page 2-1

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

2.4 Project Footprint 2.4.1 Line 2 Replacement Pipeline The width of the construction right-of-way is determined based upon pipe dimensions and the space required for a safe and efficient workspace to accommodate construction materials and equipment for pipeline construction right-of-way activities. In addition, there are a number of existing pipelines in the rights-of-way being paralleled that will require extra space to work safely around. The required construction right-of-way will typically be 43 m wide to accommodate the proposed pipeline activities.

Within the construction right-of-way the permanent easement is typically 10 m wide, but increases to 13 m wide between KPE 15.4 (SW 36-51-23 W4M) and KP 31 (NW 11-50-22 W4M) where the Project parallels a Plains Midstream Canada right-of-way. The remainder of the 43 m wide construction right-of-way width will be used as temporary workspace. Temporary workspace is shared with the existing adjacent right-of- way to the extent feasible, which typically consists of 1 m to 5 m wide shared workspace. No workspace will be shared with Plains Midstream Canada.

Additional temporary workspace will be required at select locations to accommodate construction activities (e.g., road, buried utility line and water crossings, sharp sidebends, tie-ins and locations where extra depth pipe or heavy grading is required). Enbridge will also acquire temporary workspace for Project construction needs such as stockpile sites, shoo-flies and contractor staging areas.

2.4.2 Line 2 Deactivation The work associated with deactivating the existing segment of Line 2 is anticipated to be conducted mostly within Enbridge property or Enbridge existing rights-of-way. As discussed earlier, if additional workspace is required, Enbridge will acquire rights to use such space appropriately. Deactivation activities will be focused at both ends of the deactivated segment where excavation is required (i.e., at the Edmonton Terminal and at the end of the Project at SW 1-50-22 W4M).

2.5 Project Components 2.5.1 Line 2 Replacement Technical details of the components of the Line 2 Replacement pipeline are summarized in Table 2.1. The total land Footprint required to construct the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline is approximately 177 ha. Remote sectionalizing valves will be installed within the existing Enbridge right-of-way where feasible.

Construction equipment will travel along the proposed construction right-of-way and access the route via existing and temporary access roads. No new permanent access will be required. Design, construction and operation of the pipeline will be in compliance with applicable codes, standards and regulations. Pending regulatory approval, construction is scheduled to commence in August 2013.

Enbridge is proposing to construct the Line 2 Replacement Project adjacent to the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project proposed route for approximately 38 km from the Edmonton Terminal at NE 32-52-23 W4M (KP 0.3) to a valve site in SW 1-50-22 W4M (KP 33.8). Pending regulatory approval, construction of the Line 2 Replacement Project is scheduled to commence in August 2013, with the construction of the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project following approximately one year later in August 2014.

Where the Line 2 Replacement Project parallels the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project, the two pipelines will typically share a 35 m common construction right-of-way. Enbridge will salvage topsoil and grade the Line 2 Replacement Project 43 m wide construction right-of-way in 2013 and will leave the topsoil windrowed. In 2014, the topsoil piles will be set back to the edge of the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project right-of-way, and the additional 10 m of topsoil salvage and grading will be completed. Topsoil replacement and reclamation of the combined 53-55 m Footprint will be completed together upon the completion of the Project. If the above-mentioned soils handling plan is not feasible due to landowner concerns or construction feasibility, topsoil replacement and restoration of preconstruction contours will be conducted for the Line 2 Replacement pipeline by Q4 2013.

Page 2-2

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 2.1

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED LINE 2 REPLACEMENT PIPELINE

Total Length: Approximately 38.2 km Length Parallel to Existing Pipeline Right-of-Way: 34.2 km (89%) Length Deviating from Existing Pipeline 4 km (11%) Right-of-Way: Product: Oil Source Point: Tie-in at the existing Edmonton Terminal at SE 5-53-23 W4M (KP 0.0) Delivery Point: Tie-in at a new valve site at SW 1-50-22 W4M (KP 33.8) Pipe Size: 609 mm O.D. (NPS 24) Construction Footprint (Typical) (Construction The construction right-of-way will typically be 43 m wide consisting of permanent easement and Right-of-Way): temporary workspace. The permanent easement is typically 10 m wide, but increases to 13 m wide between KPE 15.4 (SW 36-51-23 W4M) and KP 31 (NW 11-50-22 W4M) where the Project parallels a Plains Midstream Canada right-of-way. The remainder of the construction right-of-way width will be used as temporary workspace. Temporary workspace is shared with the existing adjacent right-of-way to the extent feasible (typically 1- 5 m wide shared workspace). No workspace will be shared with Plains Midstream Canada. Additional Temporary Workspace: Additional temporary workspace will be required at select locations to accommodate construction activities (e.g., road, buried utility line and water crossings, sharp sidebends, tie-ins and locations where extra depth pipe or heavy grading is required). Enbridge will also acquire temporary workspace for Project construction needs such as stockpile sites, shoo-flies, and contractor staging areas. Minimum Depth of Cover: 0.9 m Typical Trench Width: Approximately 1 m Test Medium: Water Construction Schedule: August 2013 to early 2015. The proposed pipeline is expected to be in-service by Q4 2013. If the above-mentioned soils handling plan is followed, construction activities are considered to include clean-up and reclamation, which will be conducted in early 2015, concurrent with clean-up and reclamation for the proposed Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project which will parallel the proposed pipeline; however, if this plan is not feasible due to landowner concerns or construction feasibility, clean-up and reclamation will be completed by Q4 2013. Expected Useful Life of Pipeline: 30+ years Aboveground Facilities: Valve site at SW 1-50-22 W4M (KP 33.8)

2.5.2 Line 2 Deactivation The proposed location and technical details of the components of the existing Line 2 pipeline segment deactivation are summarized in Table 2.2.

Equipment used for decommissioning activities will travel along existing Enbridge rights-of-way and access routes to access either end of the decommissioned segment. Deactivation of the Line 3 segment pipeline will be in compliance with Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662-11 and OPR, 1999. Pending regulatory approval, deactivation activities are scheduled to commence in Q4 2013.

TABLE 2.2

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED LINE 2 SEGMENT DEACTIVATION SEGMENT

Total Length: Approximately 33.8 km Product: Oil Beginning Point: Edmonton Terminal at SE 5-53-23 W4M (KP 0.0) End Point: SW 1-50-22 W4M (KP 33.8) near Joseph Lake Pipe Size: 609 mm O.D. (NPS 24) Footprint: Deactivation activities will occur at either end of segment of the existing Line 2 pipeline to be deactivated. The area required at each end to access the pipeline and perform the necessary tasks associated with deactivation will include both permanent easement and temporary workspace. Existing Minimum Depth of Cover: 0.9 m Purge Material: Inert gas (e.g., nitrogen) Schedule: Q4 2013 Length of Deactivation Activities: Approximately one month

Page 2-3

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

2.6 Construction 2.6.1 Line 2 Replacement Pipeline Pipeline Construction Activities The total length of pipeline to be installed for the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline is approximately 38.2 km. Pipeline construction will involve the following standard activities: engineering; construction surveying; clearing of vegetation; topsoil salvage; grading (where warranted); stringing; bending and welding; trenching; lowering-in; backfilling; hydrostatic testing; clean-up and reclamation; and watercourse and wetland crossings. These activities are generally presented in the order of occurrence during construction.

Pipeline Construction Phase Associated Activities Engineering The pipeline will be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable regulations, industry and company standards. Construction Survey Activities include line-of-sight flagging and staking of the boundaries of the construction right-of-way, temporary workspace as well as marking trench line and existing utilities. Avoidance areas will also be appropriately fenced or flagged, where warranted. Clearing Vegetation (grasses, brush and other woody vegetation) will be mowed or cleared from the construction right-of-way and temporary workspace. Snow, if present, trees, stumps, brush, crops and other vegetation will be generally cleared or mowed from the proposed construction right-of-way and temporary workspace. Topsoil Salvage Topsoil will be salvaged to ensure that the soil productivity is maintained. The width and depth of topsoil salvage depend on a number of factors including: land use; soil conditions; microtopography; landowner requests; and grading requirements. Equipment used during topsoil handling activities may include dozers, graders and/or backhoes. Grading Following topsoil salvage, grading will be conducted on irregular ground surfaces (including temporary workspace), if necessary, to provide a safe work surface. Graders, backhoes and dozers may be used for this activity. Stringing and Welding The pipe will be bent, lined-up, welded, joint-coated and inspected prior to being lowered into the trench. Equipment used during stringing and welding activities includes pipe trucks, booms, pick-up trucks, excavators and x-ray or ultrasonic inspection equipment mounted on trucks. Trenching The trench will be excavated using tracked excavators or a ditch wheel to a depth sufficient to ensure the depth of cover is in accordance or in excess of applicable codes. The minimum depth of cover will be at least 0.9 m or greater. Lowering-In The pipe will be lowered into the trench using sideboom tractors. Trench dewatering may be necessary at certain locations during lowering-in (e.g., to ensure acceptable bedding for pipe, to prevent the pipe from floating or for performing tie-in welds). Backfilling Prior to backfilling, subsurface erosion control structures such as trench breakers will be installed, if warranted. The trench will be backfilled using backhoes, graders, dozers or specialized backfilling equipment. Backfill material will generally consist of native trench spoil material. Displaced subsoil will be crowned over the trench to compensate for settlement and any excess trench spoil will be feathered-out over adjacent portions of the right-of-way where topsoil salvage has occurred. Testing All piping will be hydrostatically pressure tested and adhere to relevant provincial and federal regulations.

Page 2-4

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

Pipeline Construction Phase Associated Activities Clean-up and Reclamation Initial (rough) clean-up and reclamation activities along disturbed portions of the proposed construction right-of-way and temporary access trails (shoo-flies) will be initiated following backfilling, once weather and soil conditions permit. Final clean-up and reclamation will be conducted in early 2015 concurrent with clean-up and reclamation for the proposed Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project which will parallel the proposed pipeline. However, if this is not feasible due to landowner concerns or construction feasibility, final clean-up and reclamation for the Project will be conducted in Q4 2013. Clean-up and reclamation procedures will be initiated using dozers, backhoes and/or graders. Garbage or debris remaining onsite will be removed and disposed of in compliance with local regulations. The construction right-of-way will be graded to restore preconstruction contours, where practical. The proposed pipeline easement will be returned to a stable condition. The topsoil will be replaced, with cross ditches and diversion berms installed on any moderate slopes to reduce the risk of erosion. All disturbed, noncultivated, upland areas will be seeded with an appropriate seed mix. Watercourse and Wetland Watercourses and waterbodies have been confirmed and classified during an Crossings Aquatics Assessment conducted by a Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialist (QAES) in July 2012. The results and recommendations of the Aquatic Assessment, including crossing methods, are provided in Appendix 4 of this ESA. Wetlands have been confirmed and classified during a Wetland Assessment conducted by a wetland specialist in August 2012. The results and recommendations of the Wetland Assessment, including wetland crossing mitigative measures, are provided in Appendix 5 of this ESA. Inspection Enbridge will retain the services of a qualified Environmental Inspector during all critical phases of construction of the Line 2 Replacement pipeline (Section 8.0 of this ESA). The Environmental Inspector will monitor construction activities and ensure the implementation of protection measures outlined in the EPP (Appendix 1 of this ESA) and the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of this ESA) developed for the Project.

2.6.2 Line 2 Deactivation Deactivation Activities

Deactivation Phase Associated Activities Engineering The deactivation will be engineered to abide by all applicable industry standards and specifications. Survey Activities include staking of the boundaries of the work area, temporary workspace as well as marking trench line and existing utilities. Avoidance areas will also be appropriately fenced or flagged, where warranted. Clearing Vegetation (grasses, brush and other woody vegetation) will be mowed or cleared from the construction right-of-way and temporary workspace. Snow, if present, trees, stumps, brush, crops and other vegetation will be generally cleared or mowed from the proposed construction right-of-way and temporary workspace. Topsoil Salvage Topsoil will be salvaged to ensure that the soil productivity is maintained. The width and depth of topsoil salvage depend on a number of factors including: land use; soil conditions; microtopography; landowner requests; and grading requirements. Equipment used during topsoil handling activities may include dozers, graders and/or backhoes. Excavation Bellholes will be excavated using a hydrovac, tracked excavators, and/or hand tools to expose the pipeline. The bellholes will be sufficiently large to allow for workers to enter the excavation and be sloped adequately to ensure worker safety.

Page 2-5

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

Deactivation Phase Associated Activities Draining/cleaning of pipeline The pipeline will be drained and brush pigs will be run through the pipeline to segment remove excess material in the pipeline. All material drained and removed from the pipeline will be collected in on-site storage tanks connected directly to the existing pipeline. Purging Nitrogen will be used to run the brush pigs as well as purge the pipeline. Welding End-caps will be welded into place where the pipeline has been cut to effectively seal the pipeline. Backfilling The excavation will be backfilled using backhoes, graders, dozers or specialized backfilling equipment. Backfill material will generally consist of native trench spoil material. Displaced subsoil will be feathered-out over adjacent portions of the work area where topsoil salvage has occurred. Clean-up and Reclamation Initial (rough) clean-up and reclamation activities will be initiated following backfilling, once weather and soil conditions permit. Final clean-up and reclamation will be conducted in late 2013 or spring/summer 2014 following deactivation. If portions of the deactivation sites overlap with the Line 2 Replacement activities and the paralleling Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project, these respective portions may be cleaned-up upon completion of the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project, should they be approved. Clean-up and reclamation procedures will be initiated using dozers, backhoes and/or graders. Garbage or debris remaining onsite will be removed and disposed of in compliance with local regulations. The work area will be graded to restore preconstruction contours, where practical. The topsoil will be replaced, with cross ditches and diversion berms installed on any moderate slopes to reduce the risk of erosion. All disturbed, noncultivated, upland areas will be seeded with an appropriate seed mix. Cathodic Protection Cathodic protection of the deactivated pipeline will remain in place Monitoring The deactivated pipeline will be continually monitored. If deactivation extends for a period of more than 18 months, annual confirmation of the suitability of the deactivation method used will be conducted. Inspection Enbridge will retain the services of a qualified Environmental Inspector during all critical phases of the existing Line 2 pipeline segment deactivation (Section 8.0 of this ESA). The Environmental Inspector will monitor construction activities and ensure the implementation of protection measures outlined in the EPP (Appendix 1 of this ESA) and the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of this ESA) developed for the Project.

2.6.3 Estimated Workforce Requirements Construction of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline will involve a workforce of up to 500 workers. Deactivation of the segment of the existing Line 2 pipeline will involve up to 20 workers. The skills of the anticipated workforce will include heavy equipment operators, welders, labourers, teamsters, mechanics, foremen, surveyors, inspectors and field office support personnel. No permanent jobs are anticipated to be created directly by the Project because this is a replacement pipeline.

2.6.4 Environmental Permits/Approvals The environmental permits and authorizations that will be obtained prior to the commencement of construction activities related to the Project are identified in Table 2.3 of this ESA.

Page 2-6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 2.3

ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS/APPROVALS

Agency Permit, Approval, Authorization and/or Notification FEDERAL NEB Order pursuant to and Section 58 of the NEB Act and Section 44 of the OPR., 1999 DFO Notification under the applicable Operational Statements (OSs). Transport Canada Approval under Section 108 of the NEB Act may be required in the unlikely event any proposed water crossings or hydrostatic testing sources are deemed to be navigable. As a result of the passage of the Jobs, Growth and Long- term Prosperity Act [Bill C-38], regulation requirements of some federal legislation is evolving and actual permitting requirements will be confirmed through continuous consultation with the regulators. PROVINCIAL AESRD Public Land Agreement (Pipeline Agreement [PLA]) on Crown land. Fish Research Licence (FRL) for fish rescue at isolated crossings. Burning Permits. Wildlife Damage Permits for beaver, lodge and beaver dam removal. Notification under the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Notification under the Code of Practice for Pipelines and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body. Notification under the Code of Practice for the Temporary Diversion of Water for Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines. Registration under the Code of Practice for the Release of Hydrostatic Test Water from Hydrostatic Testing of Petroleum Liquid and Gas Pipelines. Alberta Culture Historical Resources Act clearance. Alberta Transportation Roadside Development Permit at provincial highways. Alberta Infrastructure Consent for use of the TUC. Strathcona County and Leduc County Local Development and Building Permits, Herbicide Permits, Burning Permits, Excavation Permits, Road Crossing Permits and Utility Crossing Permits.

2.6.5 Project Schedule Pipeline construction activities are progressive commencing with survey and right-of-way preparation and continuing through pipe stringing, welding, pipe inspection, trenching, lowering-in, backfilling, clean-up and reclamation. These activities are performed sequentially and move along the construction right-of-way from west to east. The average duration crews will be working at a given location on the construction right-of-way is relatively short (approximately two months). Tie-in locations generally take longer to complete construction since they are routinely completed and tested last. Testing will be conducted following installation of the pipeline. As stated earlier, Enbridge anticipates that clean-up and reclamation activities will be delayed until early 2015 and will be conducted in conjunction with clean-up and reclamation for the Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project. However, if this is not feasible due to landowner concerns or construction feasibility, final clean-up and reclamation will be conducted in Q4 2013. Construction activities are expected to occur over a four month period (see Table 2.4). The pipeline is expected to be in-service by Q4 2013.

TABLE 2.4

EXPECTED DURATION OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ACTIVITIES

Major Activity Expected Duration of Major Activity LINE 2 REPLACEMENT PIPELINE 5 months total CONSTRUCTION Surveying 4 months Clearing 2 weeks Topsoil Salvage 4 weeks Grading 2 weeks Stringing and Welding 2 months Trenching 3 months Lowering-in 3 months Backfilling 3 months Testing over a period of 2 months Clean-up and Reclamation 3 months LINE 2 DEACTIVATION 1 month

Page 2-7

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 2.4 Cont'd

Major Activity Expected Duration of Major Activity LINE 2 REPLACEMENT PIPELINE 30+ years OPERATIONS Line Patrols Once every 2 weeks Facility Inspections In accordance with the preventative maintenance schedule

2.7 Operation and Maintenance Enbridge’s current systems that manage the safe operation and long-term integrity of its existing pipelines will be expanded to include the proposed Project. Operations and maintenance activities will include regular aerial and ground patrol programs along the pipeline right-of-way and associated facilities. Flow in the new pipeline will be remotely monitored and controlled at the existing Enbridge control centre. No new pipeline maintenance bases will be required. Enbridge is an active participant in oil spill and emergency response exercises, and has detailed emergency response plans in place (see Section 8.0 of this ESA).

Enbridge will implement its Integrity Management Program (IMP) to ensure that the on-going requirements of the pipeline are met throughout its service life. Internal inspection is an integral part of Enbridge’s current IMP. The proposed in-line inspection tools will regularly inspect the pipeline for internal and external corrosion, dents and cracks that could lead to a failure in the pipeline. In addition, the threat of external corrosion will also be mitigated by means of a cathodic protection system in the event of coating damage or disbondment.

2.8 Decommissioning and Abandonment of the Line 2 Replacement Pipeline It is difficult at this time to predict when or how the pipeline and facilities will be decommissioned and abandoned at the end of the Project’s useful life. In May 2011, Enbridge filed with the NEB physical plans for abandonment as part of the NEB Land Matters Consultation Initiative. The document contains assumptions for the types of facilities that would be abandoned in place, abandoned in place with special treatment or removed. The methods of abandonment that will ultimately be implemented for the Project will be determined at the time the pipeline is removed from operation; however, those determinations will be based on the most current sound scientific studies and accepted industry practice at that time. Any decommissioning or abandonment activities will require prior approval by the NEB and other applicable agencies. Decommissioning and abandonment is discussed further in Section 6.0 of this ESA.

Page 2-8

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

3.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT 3.1 Introduction Stakeholder consultation and Aboriginal engagement were initiated by Enbridge in August 2012. Enbridge will continue to work closely with landowners, representatives of all three levels of government, Aboriginal communities and other stakeholders to identify and address any concerns about the Project. Any potential issues or concerns identified to date have been addressed in this ESA.

Enbridge worked independently and in collaboration with TERA to consult with government and non-government agencies as well as local communities to collect information for incorporation into the ESA. Consultation provides those who could be affected by the Project with the opportunity to participate in the ESA. Enbridge is committed to building long-term relationships with the communities within which it operates. Enbridge recognizes and respects the rights of landowners, as well as Aboriginal communities and their relationship with the land. Enbridge believes that consultation develops mutual trust and helps to build co-operative working relationships. The goal of these programs is to share information about the plans and activities of the Project while receiving a clear understanding of how people and environmental resources may be affected by the Project.

Approximately 98% of the proposed pipeline route is located on lands unavailable for the practice of traditional use activities (i.e., privately-owned land [72%] and land within the TUC [26%]). Enbridge has made efforts to incorporate any concerns identified by Aboriginal communities potentially affected by the Project. 3.2 Consultation Objectives and Methods 3.2.1 Consultation Objectives The objectives of consultation were to:

• share information about the Project, the proponent and the regulatory process;

• seek landowner consent to the Project;

• assist in the identification of potential effects of the Project;

• encourage participation in the development of mitigation measures; and

• obtain input from federal and provincial regulatory agencies on the Project design and ESA requirements. The public involvement activities conducted in association with the preparation of the Project Application and this ESA include consultation with federal, provincial and municipal government agencies, landowners and engagement with Aboriginal communities and other interested parties, where applicable. Key environmental and socio-economic issues raised during the consultation and engagement program are discussed in the relevant sections of this ESA. The consultation and engagement conducted in association with the preparation of this ESA were designed to complement the Enbridge consultation program. 3.2.2 Methods A number of methods have been used to inform the public, obtain feedback and identify issues about the Project including: distribution of Project letters, brochures, maps and fact sheets; phone calls; informal discussions; open houses; and meetings. Enbridge, with the assistance of TERA, sent ESA-related contact letters to provincial and federal agencies with jurisdiction in the proposed Project area. Government representatives were informed of the location and construction schedule of the proposed Project. Representatives were requested to identify any concerns and to provide information that might influence routing, construction or operation of the proposed Project. Follow-up phone calls or meetings were held with the regulators contacted. The Project toll-free line and e-mail address provide an additional avenue for stakeholders to seek information, ask questions and express concerns.

Page 3-1

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

3.2.2.1 Aboriginal Engagement The primary criteria used by Enbridge to determine which Aboriginal communities to engage with respect to the Project include:

• proximity of Aboriginal communities to the proposed route (i.e., First Nation whose reserve lands are within approximately 75 km of the Project and Métis regional boundaries traversed by the Project); and

• Enbridge’s knowledge of the Aboriginal communities in the area, based on its history of project development and operating pipelines and facilities. The proposed pipeline route traverses the eastern portion of Treaty 6 in central Alberta. Treaty 6 includes most of central Alberta and a substantial portion of central Saskatchewan. There are 17 First Nations in Treaty 6 in Alberta.

The Métis Nation of Alberta is one of the political representative organizations for the Métis people of Alberta. Métis people residing in central Alberta who are members of the Métis Nation of Alberta are represented by Regional Councils in Zones II and IV.

Based on the above criteria, the focus of Enbridge’s primary consultation activities has been with the following Aboriginal communities:

• Alexander First Nation;

• Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation;

• Enoch Cree Nation;

• Ermineskin Tribe;

• Louis Bull Tribe;

• Montana First Nation;

• Paul First Nation;

• Samson Cree Nation;

• Métis Nation of Alberta - Zone II Regional Council; and

• Métis Nation of Alberta - Zone IV Regional Council. The Aboriginal Engagement Program for the Project has and will continue to involve a number of activities including: mail outs of letters and Project information materials; face-to-face meetings; and ongoing issues tracking and follow-up activities. Details of the consultation and engagement program are provided in the Project Application. 3.3 Consultation and Engagement Outcomes The results of consultation and engagement have helped refine the ESA for the Project. With this information, Enbridge identified issues, addressed concerns and responded to questions. Consultation and engagement have also provided communities and government agencies with an understanding of the Project. Concerns raised to date are largely related to pipeline routing and compensation. Enbridge representatives continue to engage stakeholders to address any concerns raised. Results of the consultation and engagement program have been considered and incorporated throughout the ESA where relevant, including the effects assessment and mitigation and enhancement measures. Enbridge will continue to work with government and nongovernment agencies to identify and address environmental issues and concerns with the objective of resolving these issues and concerns in a manner that meets the interests of all parties.

A summary of the agencies and groups contacted for their input into this ESA and their respective comments is provided in Table 3.1.

Page 3-2

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

4.0 ROUTE SELECTION 4.1 Control Points The primary routing control points for the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline are identified as follows:

• tie-in at existing Edmonton Terminal (source control point) at SE 5-53-23 W4M (KP 0.0); and

• tie-in at a mainline block valve near Joseph Lake (delivery control point) at SW 1-50-22 W4M (KP 33.8).

4.2 Routing Considerations The existing Enbridge pipeline system between the Edmonton Terminal and KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M) is predominantly located within an agricultural setting. Route selection of the proposed pipeline takes into consideration the constraints of the source and delivery control points as well as the preferred placement adjacent to existing Enbridge pipelines. Other considerations include:

• maximizing the length within the TUC, where land has been set aside for utilities such as the current Project;

• avoiding rural residents;

• reducing, to the extent practical, conflict with existing land and resource uses based on input from the landowners, occupants, Aboriginal communities, regulatory agencies, other stakeholders and the public;

• reducing, to the extent practical, the length crossing environmentally sensitive areas such as protected, endangered or sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitat;

• complying with applicable regulatory requirements;

• avoiding, to the extent practical, socially and culturally important areas such as parks, natural areas, heritage sites, cemeteries, etc.;

• avoiding wooded areas to the extent practical;

• crossing all highways and all-season roads at as close to right angles as practical;

• following existing linear infrastructure (i.e., pipelines and roads) where feasible;

• avoiding wetlands, where possible; and

• using the shortest route practical.

The routing strategy was to install the Line 2 Replacement pipeline parallel and adjacent to an existing Enbridge pipeline right-of-way, where feasible. Two primary options exist where Enbridge has existing pipeline right-of-way potentially available to be paralleled. The existing Enbridge Line 2 pipeline right-of- way (i.e., the pipeline being replaced) runs in a generally straight line southeast from the Edmonton Terminal. The existing Enbridge Line 4 Extension pipeline right-of-way deviated from the existing Enbridge pipeline mainline corridor for a length of approximately 15.2 km (i.e., the Edmonton reroute). The alignment of the Line 4 Extension Edmonton reroute was driven by the requirement of Alberta Infrastructure to use the TUC. The Line 4 Extension Edmonton reroute was preferred for the current Project not only because it used the TUC, but also because it avoids areas of restricted workspace where residential subdivisions had encroached on the existing Enbridge Line 2 right-of-way over the years and it also avoids the Sherwood Park Natural Area in 11-52-23 W4M.

Enbridge reviewed the preliminary route options during summer 2012. Several route revisions were adopted to avoid direct impacts to homes, well sites and powerlines. Environmental studies were conducted in summer 2012 to assess the route and identify any environmental concerns while

Page 4-1

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207 considering the constraints of the source and delivery points as well as the other routing considerations noted above.

Enbridge recognizes that along segments of the route, workspace for the construction of the proposed pipeline is limited, thus narrowing of the construction right-of-way will be necessary to avoid or reduce potential conflicts. Minor deviations from the existing pipeline right-of-way occur at several locations along the proposed route. Minor route refinements may be necessary at additional locations to accommodate landowner concerns or to avoid local features. Any such route refinements will be dealt with as supplemental filings to this Application.

4.3 Proposed Pipeline Route The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is shown on Figure 1.1 and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of this ESA) at a scale of 1:10,000. The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline is approximately 38.2 km in length and is contiguous to existing linear disturbances for 94% (approximately 35.9 km) of its length. The proposed Project routing generally lies parallel to the Line 4 Extension Project for approximately 89% (approximately 34.2 km) of its length. The TUC is used from KPE 0.5 to KPE 10.0 or SW 33-52-23 W4M to NW 33-51-23 W4M. Similar to the Line 4 Extension Project, the proposed pipeline route rejoins the original Enbridge pipeline mainline (including the existing Line 2) at approximately KPE 15.4 (SW 36-51-23 W4M) and parallels it for the remainder of its length to KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M).

As stated in Section 1.0 of this ESA, the system of KPs used in this ESA are Environment KPs. This system of KPs has been used for several NEB regulated pipelines in the existing right-of-way, including the Enbridge Line 4 Extension Project and the IPL SEP II and CEP Projects. Historically and in the Environment KP system, KP 0.0 is located at the Enbridge Edmonton Terminal and KP 1245.2 is located at the US border near Gretna, Manitoba. Using this Environment KP system, the currently proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route begins at KP 0.0 at the Edmonton Terminal (SE 5-53-23 W4M) and ends at KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M), following the Enbridge mainline right-of-way that has been in place since the early 1950s, which is more or less a straight line.

During the Line 4 Extension Project in 2007, the Edmonton reroute was identified at the time of that project as a subset of the KP numbering system, KPE 0.0 to KPE 15.4 (SE 32-52-23 W4M to SW 36-51-23 W4M). This deviation numbering system has also been carried forward to the current Project. The Environment KP numbering system and all deviations greater than 60 m from the mainline right-of-way are shown in detail on Figures 1.2 through 1.5 and are described below.

Minor route deviations are located at:

• KPHA 0.0 to KPHA 1.0 (3-28-52-23 W4M to 12-21-52-23 W4M) to accommodate a powerline;

• KPHB 0.0 to KPHB 0.8 (6-4-52-23 W4M to 14-33-51-23 W4M) to accommodate a powerline;

• KPHC 0.0 to KPHC 0.7 (1-4-51-22 W4M to 16-32-50-22 W4M) to avoid a residence; and

• KPHD 0.0 to KPHD 1.1 (14-11-50-22 W4M to 2-11-50-22 W4M) to avoid an industrial development.

Using Environment KPs allows for historic consistency on the location of site-specific environmental and socio-economic issues, and facilitates cross referencing of previous Enbridge ESAs, supporting studies, permits, PCEM reports and IRs that use this system. Since the Environmental Alignment Sheets will be used during construction by those using a separate set of Project KPs, both Environment KPs and Project KPs are shown on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of this ESA). For additional clarity, legal locations and, where appropriate, GPS co-ordinates of site-specific issues are included in tables and text throughout the ESA.

Page 4-2

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

4.4 Temporary Facility Siting 4.4.1 Temporary Facilities The following temporary facilities may be required prior to or during the construction program:

• stockpiles sites;

• temporary bridges for watercourse crossings;

• road upgrades and new temporary access roads (shoo-flies); and

• contractor staging areas.

The need for and the respective general location of these sites are the responsibility of the pipeline construction contractor; however, all temporary workspace and temporary facility site locations will require the approval of the Environmental Inspector or Enbridge Environment staff. Temporary facilities will be located within existing industrial areas to the extent feasible.

4.4.2 Siting Criteria Once the approximate location of temporary workspace or temporary facility for use during construction has been identified, the sites will be assessed and, where appropriate, approved by the Environmental Inspector or Enbridge’s environmental staff. Detailed environmental surveys (e.g., aquatic, vegetation and wildlife) will be conducted, where necessary, to determine any potential environmental issues (see Section 10.0 of this ESA). The surveys conducted during summer 2012 for the proposed pipeline took into account the proposed temporary workspace at road, water and major foreign line crossings. The selection process for any additional temporary facility site/workspace will take into consideration the known environmental issues as identified in Section 6.0 of this ESA and on the Environmental Alignment Sheets [Appendix 2 of this ESA] and ensure adherence to the site selection criteria noted below. It is of note that there is a great deal of flexibility for some temporary facilities (e.g., pipe stockpile sites) while other temporary facilities must be located at or in the immediate vicinity of a particular location (e.g., temporary workspace where heavy grading is necessary).

The following site selection criteria will be used to evaluate and select temporary facility sites and workspace:

• selection of an optimal location for construction needs;

• preference will be given to sites used for the original construction of the Enbridge mainline right-of-way and Line 4 Extension Project;

• avoidance, to the extent practical, of areas of native vegetation by maximizing the use of previously cleared or broken lands, or lands currently under industrial land use;

• preferential selection of grassed areas over bush or treed areas when temporary workspace is necessary on lands supporting native vegetation;

• avoidance, to the extent practical, of known locations that provide site-specific habitat for wildlife species of concern or apply special mitigation (see Section 6.0 of this ESA);

• avoidance, to the extent practical, of known sites that support known rare plant species or apply special mitigation (see Section 6.0 of this ESA);

• avoidance, to the extent practical, of steep slopes, organic soils and poorly-drained areas;

• avoidance, to the extent practical, of known areas with heritage resource or TLRU sites or apply special mitigation (see Section 6.0 of this ESA);

Page 4-3

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

• avoidance of locations adjacent to a conflicting land use where potential noise, dust or visual concerns could not be readily mitigated; and

• selection of temporary facilities that require the use of utilities at sites already serviced by roads and utilities.

The evaluation of potential temporary facility sites/workspace will be conducted as far in advance of its intended use as practical to allow adequate time to choose and evaluate alternative sites. In the event that specific mitigation is warranted for the site, the measures developed will be documented in the Environmental As-Built Report (see Section 8.0 of this ESA). General provisions will be included in the contract documents that commit contractors to site protection/restoration measures at sites identified, evaluated and used during the construction program. Mitigative measures to be used at temporary facility sites and temporary work areas will be as described in Section 6.0 of this ESA. All applicable landowner as well as municipal, provincial and federal approvals for the temporary facility site or workspace will be acquired prior to commencement of work. The level of mitigation applied will ensure that any residual environmental effects are reduced to a level that is not significant.

Page 4-4

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING Table 5.1 describes the environmental and socio-economic setting along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route and, also addresses the construction Footprint required for deactivation activities, within the general Project area. Select environmental setting information is also provided on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of this ESA). Information collected during the preparation of the environmental and socio-economic setting was obtained from existing literature, internet searches and personal communications, all of which are cited in Section 12.0 of this ESA. In addition, the results of the soils, aquatics, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, archaeology and socio-economic supporting studies are summarized in Table 5.1. The spatial boundaries of elements discussed in the environmental setting are described in detail in Section 6.2 of this ESA.

TABLE 5.1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Physical and • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route lies within the Eastern Alberta Plains Physiographic Region and, within this physiographic Meteorological region, most of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is within the Beaver Hills Upland District. A small portion of the north end of Environment the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is within the Lake Edmonton Plain Physiographic District. The Beaver Hills Upland is composed of hummocky and undulating morainal material with potential for small areas of glaciolacustrine material. The Lake Edmonton Plain is primarily composed of undulating glaciolacustrine materials with potential for small areas of glaciofluvial, morainal and rock material (Pettapiece 1986). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route lies within the Central Parkland Subregion of the Parkland Natural Region. In 51-22 W4M, the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses a small portion of Dry Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • The topography along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is undulating to hummocky, reflecting the variations in till thickness (Shetsen 1990). Elevations along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route range from approximately 685 m above sea level (asl) to 785 m asl. • Most of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is underlain by stagnation moraine, which consists of till of uneven thickness (up to 30 m thick) with local water-sorted material (Shetsen 1990). The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is underlain by the Horseshoe Canyon Formation of the Upper Cretaceous origin which is characterized by grey, feldspathic, clayey sandstone; grey bentonitic mudstone and carbonaceous shale; concretionary ironstone beds, scattered coal and bentonite beds of variable thickness; minor limestone beds; and is of mainly nonmarine origin (Hamilton et al. 1999). • Drift thickness in the general proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route area varies from 15-45 m (Pawlowicz and Fenton 1995). • Acid-generating bedrock has not been encountered along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not encounter any areas of permafrost (Natural Resources Canada [NRCan] 2006) or ground instability (NRCan 2007a). There are no Protective Notations (PNT) for ground instability on the lands crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (Alberta Energy 2012). • The Project occurs in a zone of low seismic activity with no recorded activity or substantial earthquakes in the area (NRCan 2008a, 2011). • NRCan considers unprotected soils in the area to generally have low wind erosion risk with high climatic sensitivity (NRCan 2003). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is located in an agricultural area considered to have low soil erosion risk. Soil erosion risk is a measurement of vulnerability of the soil to erosion combined with the intensity of cultivation (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development [AARD] 2005a). Wind erosion risk, which assesses the risk of soil degradation by wind on bare, unprotected mineral soil, is considered low along most of the lands crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (AARD 2005b). Water erosion risk, which assesses the risk of soil degradation by water on bare, unprotected mineral soil, is considered negligible to moderate along most of the lands crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (AARD 2005c). Another source, NRCan, considers unprotected soils in the area to have low wind erosion risk with high climatic sensitivity (NRCan 2003). Project-specific soils sampling has determined that most of the soils along the pipeline route have a moderate wind erosion and slight to moderate water erosion hazard (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • The meteorological data summarized below were obtained from Environment Canada’s “Edmonton City Centre Airport” station, located approximately 11.6 km northwest of the Edmonton Terminal. The data were recorded from 1971-2000 (Environment Canada 2012a). - The average annual rainfall for Edmonton City Centre is 365.7 mm. Monthly rainfall is highest in June and July with averages of 87.1 mm and 91.7 mm, respectively. In July 1953, Edmonton City Centre recorded its highest daily rainfall of 114 mm. - The average annual snowfall for Edmonton City Centre is 123.5 cm. Monthly snowfall averages are highest in December and January, averaging 22.3 cm and 24.5 cm, respectively. In November 1942, 39.9 cm of snowfall was recorded in one day, well above the monthly average of 17.9 cm for November. - The average yearly temperature for Edmonton is 3.9°C, the warmest month is July with an average of 17.5°C and the coldest month is January with an average of -11.7°C. Edmonton experienced its warmest day in August 1998 when it reached 34.5°C. The coldest temperature Edmonton has recorded is -48.3°C in December 1938. - Edmonton experiences average annual winds of 12.1 km/h. April to June is the windiest time of year with an average wind speed of 13.6 km/h. The record maximum hourly wind speed in Edmonton was measured at 72 km/h in April 1954 with wind gusts of 117 km/h in June 1960. - The average number of frost-free days per year (days with the minimum temperature above 0°C) is 187. • One major tornado was recorded in the vicinity of the Project on July 31, 1987. It caused 27 deaths, 600 injuries, 1,700 evacuations and $300 million in damage (NRCan 2007b). Two major hailstorms were recorded in close proximity to the Project: one in 1988 that caused $48 million in damage; and one in 1901 that produced 8 cm diameter hailstones (NRCan 2007c).

Page 5-1

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Soil and Soil Productivity • Soil assessments along the existing Enbridge pipeline corridor were previously conducted by Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (Pedocan) and Mentiga for the IPL SEP II, CEP, NOVA Chemicals JFP Project and the Line 4 Extension Project (Pedocan 1996a,b, Mentiga 2004, 2007). Historical soils data compiled for this report are considered scientifically sound, since soils do not change at one location from year to year. No additional soil surveys were deemed necessary for the proposed Project; however, present land use was ground truthed along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route on June 28 and July 10, 2012 (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • Detailed descriptions of soils encountered are provided in Appendix 3 of this ESA. The locations of soil types encountered are identified on the Environmental Alignment Sheets (Appendix 2 of this ESA). • Well to imperfectly-drained Orthic and Gleyed Dark Grey Chernozems with 13-40 cm of topsoil developed mainly on loam to clay loam textured till and to a lesser extent, glaciolacustrine clays, are the dominant soils occupying 42.7% of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. These soils are non-saline and non-sodic and topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • Well to imperfectly-drained Orthic, Eluviated and Gleyed Black Chernozems with 15-65 cm of topsoil developed mainly on loam to clay loam textured till, and to a lesser extent, glaciolacustrine clays or glaciofluvial sands, occupy about 29.9% of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. Colour differentiation between topsoils and subsoils is excellent. The subsoils are non-saline and non-sodic (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • Well to moderately well-drained Orthic Gray Luvisols with little or no topsoil in shrub areas and 8-12 cm of topsoil in cleared and developed fields occur mainly along the central portion and occupy about 12.8% of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. These soils are developed on loam to clay loam textured till and occur on gently to moderately rolling landscapes (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • Poorly to very poorly-drained Humic Gleysols with 10-60 cm of topsoil developed on loam to clay textured till or glaciolacustrine material occur in level to depressional areas and occupy about 8.1% of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. These soils are highly susceptible to soil compaction and rutting. Topsoils are easily distinguished from subsoils by colour in these soils (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • The remaining 6.5% of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route consist of poorly to very poorly-drained Terric or Typic Mesisols developed on sedge peat (4.0%), open bodies of water (1.0%), disturbed land (<1%) and Black Solodized Solonetz developed on strongly saline and sodic till (<1%) (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • Land use along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route consists of: cultivated land (28.6%); treed-pasture (27.2%); tame pasture (21.2%); hay (14.1%); treed areas (6.3%); open water (1%); tree nursery (0.8%) and disturbed land (0.8%). • No soils along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route have been recommended for an alternate soil handling procedure to maintain soil capability (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • Sandy textured soils occupying less than 6% of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route are rated as having a high wind erosion hazard. Most other soils encountered are rated as having a moderate wind erosion hazard (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • Rolly View soils located on slopes greater than 15% are rated as having a high water erosion hazard. Most of the soil units along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route are rated as having a slight or moderate water erosion hazard (Appendix 3 of this ESA). • Approximately 19% of the soils along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route are susceptible to soil compaction and rutting due to their physical characteristics (texture) and drainage. • The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) (1967) has rated the soils along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route as ranging from Class 1 (soils that have no significant limitations in use for crops) to Class 6 (soils that are only capable of producing perennial forage crops and improvement practices are not feasible). • There are no Crown dispositions related to soils encountered by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (Alberta Energy 2012). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not encounter any contaminated sites listed on the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2011) or listed by the NEB (2010a). There were no spills reported along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route during the construction of the SEP II, JFP Project or Line 4 Extension Project. • Most of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route will be located on cultivated, tame pasture and hay with treed areas, and is adjacent to existing pipeline rights-of-way. Potential contaminants of concern may be present from previous pipeline construction activities, or may occur during construction and maintenance activities; these may include compounds routinely used in pipeline construction such as fusion bond epoxy, liquid epoxy pipe coating, paint and hydrocarbons. Other possible sources of soil contamination are from spot spill and leaks during past farming activities. • Clubroot is a soil-borne disease that affects canola and other crops in the mustard family. It is considered a pest under the Agricultural Pests Act. In 2011, clubroot was found in 10 to 45 fields in Strathcona County and in more than 45 fields in Leduc County (AARD 2011).Information on the evaluation of reclamation success is presented in Section 6.0 of the ESA.

Page 5-2

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Water Quality and • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route lies within the North Saskatchewan River Basin and crosses two watercourses that are Quantity direct tributaries to the North Saskatchewan River (Goldbar and Mill creeks), as well as Irvine Creek, which drains into Blackmud Creek before draining into Whitemud Creek, which is a direct tributary to the North Saskatchewan River. • An aquatic assessment was conducted by a QAES in July 2012 along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses Goldbar Creek at SW 28-52-23 W4M (KPE 1.8), Mill Creek at SE 35-51-23 W4M (KPE 14.4) and Irvine Creek at SW 33-50-22 W4M (KP 24.2). Details of the results of the aquatic assessment are provided in Appendix 4 of this ESA. • A request for pre-submission services in order to determine navigability has been submitted to Transport Canada for one of the three watercourses (i.e., Irvine Creek) since Transport Canada has previously determined the remaining two watercourses (i.e., Mill and Goldbar creeks) to be non-navigable at the proposed crossings for the Enbridge Line 4 Extension Project. If Transport Canada determines this watercourse to be navigable, an application will be submitted to Transport Canada for the proposed pipeline, vehicle and equipment crossing methods. • There are no designated or nominated Canadian Heritage Rivers crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (Canadian Heritage Rivers System 2011). • Streamflow data and sediment load data are not available for the watercourses crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (Environment Canada 2008, 2012b). • Hydrostatic test water for the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is expected to be withdrawn from Joseph Lake. An estimated 30,000 m3 of water will be needed to conduct hydrostatic testing of the proposed pipeline. • There are 415 water licenses registered with AESRD within 10 km downstream of Goldbar Creek, Mill Creek and Irvine Creek (Government of Alberta 2012a). • Surface water quality risk in the vicinity of the Project is rated predominantly as 0.76-1.00 (with 1 being the highest risk and 0 being the lowest risk) (AARD 2005d). The dominant land use along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is agricultural. This attributes to the high risk rating, since the potential exists for non-point source discharges of sediment and chemicals used in pesticides and fertilizers into surrounding surface water. Possible contributing factors also include a rise in the volume of municipal wastewater effluent, runoff from domestic lawn care products and increased soil erosion. • The potential contaminants of concern associated with the Project that may affect water quality if accidentally released include those compounds routinely used in pipeline construction such as fusion bond epoxy, liquid epoxy pipe coating, paint, and various hydrocarbons. • The Aquifer Vulnerability Index in the vicinity of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is rated as low to moderately-low (AARD 2005e). The groundwater quality risk for contaminants from agricultural activities ranges from 0.28 to 0.45 (with 1 being the highest risk and 0 being the lowest risk) (AARD 2005f). • Upper sand and gravel aquifers are found in the vicinity of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. Where surficial aquifers are not sufficient in this area, most groundwater used is from the Lower Horseshoe Canyon Aquifer with some from the Middle Horseshoe Canyon Aquifer (Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1999, 2001). • Data available for KPHC 0.4 to KP 37.0 (NE 32-50-22 W4M to NE 30-49-21 W4M) along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route indicate highly permeable sand and gravel at less than 1 m below ground surface north of Looking Back Lake near approximately KP 26.0 to KP 27.0 (SE 28-50-22 W4M to NW 22-50-22 W4M). This area has been designated as having a high level of potential groundwater contamination due to high surface permeability (Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1999). • There are 615 wells within a 1 km radius of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. Most of the groundwater wells within this area are used for domestic purposes. Other well uses include stock, domestic and stock, investigation, industrial, municipal, observation and others (AESRD 2012a). • There are no recorded springs along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route according to Borneuf (1983) and Alberta Environment (AENV) (1991). No springs were encountered during the construction of the SEP II, JFP Project or Line 4 Extension Project. Air Quality • The potential receptors to nuisance air emissions from the proposed Project include local residents and communities. There are many residences located within the Air Quality RSA. • The primary sources of air emissions (criteria air contaminants [CACs]) during construction will be from fuel combustion and dust related to the use of transportation vehicles and heavy equipment. During operation, emissions will be limited to transportation and equipment use during maintenance activities. CACs expected to be emitted from Project-related activities include sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM).

• In Alberta, the upstream oil and gas industry accounts for most of the SOx and VOC emissions, and a substantial amount of NOx emissions (AENV 2008). However, these emissions are mainly associated with oil and gas facilities (gas plants, compressor stations, etc.). Contributions from the Project will be limited to vehicle and equipment use during construction and maintenance activities. • A temporary increase in airborne emissions is anticipated during construction activities. • Since the Project will not result in a substantial increase in airborne emissions during operation or maintenance, detailed air quality information is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004). • Regional ambient air quality in the vicinity of the northwest end of proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is monitored at a number of stations administered by the Strathcona Industrial Association. The reported annual air quality values are below the annual objectives, where present for the CAC in question (Strathcona Industrial Association 2011). • The most frequent wind direction at the Edmonton City Centre is from the west, although through the winter months, the wind is predominantly from the south (Environment Canada 2012a). Additional information related to climatic conditions is summarized in the physical and meteorological environment element of this table.

Page 5-3

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Greenhouse Gas (GHG) • The Project does not involve the construction and operation of any transport devices with the potential to emit substantial amounts of GHG Emissions emissions on a continual basis. Therefore, the primary sources of GHG emissions will be from construction-related activities associated with fuel combustion such as transporting crews to and from the work site and along the proposed right-of-way, as well as from the operation of heavy equipment. • The Project is not anticipated to generate high or medium volumes of GHG emissions during construction or operation based on the CEA Agency (2003). Since the Project is not expected to produce substantial amounts of GHGs during the construction or operation phases, detailed information of GHG emissions is not warranted as per Table A-1 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004). • Participation in provincial or federal reporting programs is not deemed necessary since the Project is not expected to produce substantial amounts of GHGs during the construction or operation phases. • No concerns related to GHG have been raised during public consultation for the Project. Acoustic Environment • Ambient noise in the Project area is primarily caused by anthropogenic sources such as those identified in the Infrastructure and Services element of this table. • The potential receptors to nuisance noise emissions include local residences and communities. There are many residences located within the Acoustic Environment LSA. • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not cross any boundaries of hamlets, parks or trailer courts. Enbridge will ensure that construction activities will be in compliance with Strathcona County’s Noise Bylaw 66-99 (Strathcona County 1999) and with the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board [ERCB] Directive 38 Noise Control Guidelines (ERCB 2007). There are no local bylaws pertaining to noise in Leduc County. • Noise generated by the operation of the Project is expected to be undetectable and will not contribute to ambient noise levels. Therefore, detailed information related to noise is not warranted for the Project as per Table A-2 of the NEB Filing Manual (NEB 2004). • Noise arising from construction activities and the potential effects on wildlife are discussed under the wildlife and wildlife habitat element of this table. • No concerns related to noise have been raised during public consultation for the Project. Fish and Fish Habitat • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route lies within the North Saskatchewan River Basin and crosses two watercourses that are direct tributaries to the North Saskatchewan River (Goldbar and Mill creeks), as well as Irvine Creek which drains into Blackmud Creek before draining into Whitemud Creek, which is a direct tributary to the North Saskatchewan River. • There are three proposed watercourse crossings, Goldbar Creek, Mill Creek and Irvine Creek, identified along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. Goldbar and Mill creeks are uncoded mapped Class D watercourses, while Irvine Creek is an unmapped Class D watercourse. All three watercourses have no RAP (AENV 2006a,b). • The fish community in the North Saskatchewan River near the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is a mixed assemblage which is dominated by coolwater (e.g., percids and esocids) species. Some coldwater species (e.g., salmonids) may occur in the mainstem of the North Saskatchewan River; however, these coldwater species would not be expected to occur in its smaller tributaries near the proposed crossings. • One fish species, lake sturgeon, listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), is known to occur in the North Saskatchewan River within the Aquatics RSA (COSEWIC 2012). Two species listed as ‘sensitive’ in Alberta, sauger and northern redbelly dace, are known to occur in the North Saskatchewan River near the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development [ASRD] 2010a). In addition, spoonhead sculpin, which are listed as ‘may be at risk’ in Alberta, are also known to occur in the North Saskatchewan River (ASRD 2010a). • Fish habitat potential at the three proposed watercourse crossing sites was rated for several representative fish species that would most likely be present and/or use the fish habitat in the study reach of each proposed crossing. Fish habitat potential for northern pike and walleye spawning, rearing and wintering was rated ‘unsuitable’ to ‘poor’ for all three watercourses. White sucker were rated ‘unsuitable’ to ‘fair’ for spawning, rearing and wintering habitat potential in all three watercourses. Fish habitat potential for lake chub spawning, rearing and wintering was rated ‘poor’ to ‘suboptimal’ in all three watercourses. Migration habitat potential was rated ‘suboptimal’ in Goldbar and Mill creeks and ‘fair’ in Irvine Creek within each study reach for all four fish species rated. • Open water aquatic assessments were conducted in July 2012 by a QAES at the watercourse crossings. Aquatic habitat assessment and fish inventories were conducted during that time (Appendix 4 of this ESA). • Water was present in all three watercourses at the time of the assessments. Two watercourses (Mill and Irvine creeks) were flooded at the time of the assessments. All three watercourses had mean bankfull widths of less than 5 m wide within the study reach. • The riparian areas at Goldbar and Irvine creeks are dominated by wetlands (i.e., grasses and sedges), while deciduous trees were identified as the dominant riparian vegetation at Mill Creek. • Flow from Goldbar Creek to the North Saskatchewan River has a stormwater outfall crossing the channel a few metres upstream of the mouth on Goldbar Creek. The structure prevents any fish passage upstream of the stormwater outfall (TERA 2007a). The mouth of Mill Creek is also obstructed by a stormwater outfall located immediately upstream of the James MacDonald Bridge. Mill Creek also lacks continuous surface flow throughout the year downstream of the proposed pipeline crossing in sections of the City of Edmonton (TERA 2007a). • Fish inventories were conducted at all three of the proposed watercourse crossings. Non-sportfish species (i.e., brook stickleback and fathead minnow) were captured and observed in Goldbar and Mill creeks. No fish were captured or observed in Irvine Creek. No sportfish or federally or provincially-listed fish species were captured or observed during fish sampling. • Goldbar Creek was sampled with a backpack electrofisher. One brook stickleback and seven fathead minnows were captured during electrofishing. Brook stickleback and fathead minnow have been previously documented approximately 900 m downstream of the proposed crossing and lake chub have been previously documented in Goldbar Creek approximately 4 km downstream of the proposed crossing (AESRD 2012b).

Page 5-4

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Fish and Fish Habitat • Mill Creek was sampled using minnow traps and a dipnet method. In total, 19 fathead minnows and 30 brook stickleback were captured. (cont’d) Brook stickleback and fathead minnow have been previously documented in Mill Creek 200 m downstream of the proposed crossing (AESRD 2012b). • Irvine Creek was sampled with a backpack electrofisher and baited gee minnow traps. No fish were captured. Based on the Fisheries and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) (AESRD 2012b), no fish species have been previously documented in Irvine Creek. However, the following fish species have been previously documented in Blackmud Creek: white sucker; longnose sucker; longnose dace; lake chub; fathead minnow; and brook stickleback (AESRD 2012b). Wetlands • The Project is located within the Central Parkland Natural Subregion of the Boreal Natural Region. In 51-22 W4M, the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses a small portion of Dry Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). Wetlands cover approximately 10% of the Central Parkland Natural Subregion. Wetland types include marshes, willow shrublands and seasonal ponds in the southern part of the Subregion. Wetlands comprise approximately 15% of the Dry Mixedwood Natural Subregion (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • The Project is located within the Continental and Transitional Mid-Boreal Wetland regions (Government of Canada 1986). This area is transitional between the Prairie region to the south and the Boreal region to the north. Common wetlands in this region include treed bogs and fens occurring on broad flats and in confined basins. Floating fens and shore swamps may border lakes and ponds. Lodgepole pine may be present on drier, poorer sites and balsam poplar and black spruce are common on wetter, organic sites. Marshes can be found in agricultural areas and along edges of some streams and lakes. The climate varies from cold winters and warm summers in the west to mild winters and cool summers in the east. Permafrost is absent (Government of Canada 1986). • Wetlands provide habitat for native plants and wildlife species, including nesting and foraging habitat for bird species as well as provide storage and natural filtering of water. • A ground-based wetland evaluation was conducted from August 1 to 9, 2012. During the ground-based wetland evaluation, wetlands located within 30 m of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route were classified, delineated and documented for baseline health and function. • The 2012 wetland field surveys confirmed that 61 wetlands (4.6 km in total length) are crossed by the Project, comprising approximately 12% of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. Wetlands crossed include 12 Class IV wetlands, 32 Class III wetlands, 6 Class II wetlands and 11 shrubby swamps; no Class I or V wetlands were identified on the construction right-of-way during the field surveys. This list will be updated following supplemental wetlands evaluation planned for 2013 targeting locations where access was not available in 2012 and where route revisions occurred subsequent to the summer 2012 field season (Section 9.0 of this ESA). • There are no Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance along the Project (Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2012). The Project does not cross any Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 2012), Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (Environment Canada 2012c) or Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) Priority Areas (DUC 2010). Vegetation • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is located within the Aspen Parkland Ecoregion of the Prairies Ecozone (Environment Canada 2012d) and crosses the Central Parkland Natural Subregion of the Parkland Natural Region and the Dry Mixedwood Natural Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • Aspen forest dominates the native vegetation communities in the northern and western areas of the Central Parkland Natural Subregion with grasslands being restricted to the driest areas (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • The Dry Mixedwood Natural Subregion is the most southern and the warmest subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region in Alberta. Aspen forests with understories dominated by prickly rose, low-bush cranberry, beaked hazelnut and Canada buffaloberry are typical of the uplands. Treed, shrubby or sedge-dominated fens are common in wet areas. Jack pine typically dominates dry, well drained areas (Natural Regions Committee 2006). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses approximately 34.5% native lands (treed-pasture 27.2%, treed 6.3%, and open water 1.0%) and 65.5% agricultural or disturbed lands (cultivated, tame pasture, hay, disturbed land and tree nursery) in Strathcona County and Leduc County of central Alberta. • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses lands in Strathcona County identified as Medium and High Priority Environment Management Areas of which there are no limitations or concerns identified regarding pipeline rights-of-way (Strathcona County 2007). Strathcona County has identified several objectives for High Priority Management Areas, two of these objectives relate to vegetation resources: protect rare and sensitive flora; and create buffers around unique habitats (Strathcona County 2007). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses one environmentally significant area (No. 717) of international importance from KP 35.4 to KP 35.5 and is in close proximity to two environmentally significant areas (No. 724b and No. 320) of national importance (Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation [ATPR] 2009). Several of the criteria which apply to Environmentally Significant Area No. 717 relate to its value with respect to vegetation resources. The area contains large natural areas and also contains elements of conservation concern, including one moss and three vascular plants (Campylium moss [Campylium radicale], Back’s sedge [Carex backii], watermeal [Wolffia columbiana] and widgeon-grass [Ruppia cirrhosa]) (Fiera Biological Consulting Ltd. [Fiera] 2009). Environmentally Significant Area No. 724 contains elements of conservation concern including, 9 moss species, 13 vascular plant species and 1 vegetation community, contains rare or unique landforms (Cooking Lake Area megablocks [i.e., glacial erratics]) and contains large natural areas. Environmentally Significant Area No. 320 contains large natural areas (Fiera 2009). Environmentally significant areas do not represent government policy and do not necessarily require legal protection. They are intended to be an information tool to help inform land use planning and policy at local, regional and provincial scales. • No plant species designated under the Alberta Wildlife Act are identified as potentially occurring in the Central Parkland and the Dry Mixedwood Natural Subregions. • A search of the Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) database identified occurrences of flat-topped white aster, Rhodobryum moss and widgeon-grass within 5 km of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (ACIMS 2012a). There were no known rare ecological communities within 5 km of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (ACIMS 2012a). • An early-season vegetation survey for the Project was conducted on July 2-3, July 9 and July 13, 2012. A late-season vegetation survey was conducted on August 10-12, 2012. The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route encounters mixedwood forests, seeded pipeline rights-of-way, tame pasture, hay and cultivated lands. Native vegetation within mixedwood forests was dominated by aspen, balsam poplar and white spruce. The understory of mixedwood forests was dominated by buckbrush, Canada buffaloberry and wild strawberry (Appendix 6 of this ESA).

Page 5-5

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Vegetation (cont’d) • The Project does not encounter any timber that is considered likely to be merchantable, since lands are mostly privately-owned and there is no reasonably accessible market. A timber salvage waiver will be requested on Crown land. • No rare species listed by the Alberta Wildlife Act were observed during the vegetation survey. Two rare plant species designated by ACIMS were observed during the survey. Purple-fringed Riccia (Ricciocarpos natans) was observed off right-of-way at 3-17-51-22 W4M (approximately KP 18.7). Fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) was observed at 16-15-50-22 W4M (approximately KP 29.2). • The City of Edmonton identifies six Noxious weeds of particular concern for control within municipal boundaries including creeping thistle (Canada thistle), creeping bellflower, dame’s rocket, leafy spurge, perennial sow thistle and scentless chamomile (City of Edmonton 2012a). Strathcona County conducts regular inspections for weeds and will notify Enbridge if any concerns arise during construction or operation of the Project (Horner pers. comm.). Noxious weeds of concern for Leduc County, identified by the Agricultural Feldman, are creeping thistle, common tansy, orange hawkweed and scentless chamomile (Van Beers pers. comm.). • No Prohibited Noxious weeds were observed during the vegetation surveys. Eight Noxious weeds (bladder campion [white cockle], common tansy, common toadflax [yellow toadflax], creeping thistle, ox eye daisy, perennial sow-thistle, scentless chamomile and tall buttercup) were observed during the vegetation survey for the Project. Creeping thistle was observed at moderate density in a number of locations. Common tansy and perennial sow-thistle were each observed at moderate density in only one location. All other Noxious weed occurrences were observed at low density (a single patch or a few scattered individuals). Additional information on weeds and invasive species observations is provided in Appendix 6 of this ESA. • As of November 2011, clubroot disease was identified in 10 to 45 fields in Strathcona County and greater than 45 fields in Leduc County (AARD 2011). Both Strathcona County and Leduc County identified the potential for clubroot disease to be encountered by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (Horner, Van Beers pers. comm.). Strathcona County indicated that the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses areas of agricultural land use with known occurrences of clubroot disease (Horner pers. comm.). Wildlife and Wildlife • Land use along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route consists of: cultivated land (28.6%); treed-pasture (27.2%); tame pasture Habitat (21.2%); hay (14.1%); treed areas (6.3%); open water (1%); tree nursery (0.8%) and disturbed land (0.8%). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is located within Sensitive Raptor Range for bald eagle from KP 0.2 to KP 19.1 (NE 32-52- 23 W4M to SE 17-51-22 W4M) and from KP 28.9 to KP 33.8 (NE 15-50-22 W4M to SW 1-50-22 W4M) (AESRD 2010-2012). Bald eagle nests have a 1,000 m setback (ASRD 2010b). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not intersect any provincially designated environmentally significant areas; however, one internationally important environmentally significant area (No. 717) is encountered (ATPR 2009). In addition, the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is in close proximity to two environmentally significant areas of national importance (No. 724b and No. 320) (ATPR 2009). - Environmentally Significant Area No. 717 is crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route from KPHD 0.4 to KPHD 0.5 (NW 11-50-22 W4M) and from KP 33.5 to KP 33.8 (SW 1-50-22 W4M) (approximately 700 m) (ATPR 2009). This 27,239 ha environmentally significant area provides important wildlife habitat for species such as American white pelican, ferruginous hawk, piping plover, burrowing owl and northern long-eared bat (Fiera 2009). - Environmentally Significant Area No. 724b is located approximately 5.0 km northeast of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 20.0 (NE 8-51-22 W4M). It contains the Blackfoot Grazing Reserve, Cooking Lake, Hastings Lake and Elk Island National Park (ATPR 2009, Fiera 2009). - Environmentally Significant Area No. 320 is located approximately 0.5 km northeast of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 24.0 (SW 33-50-22 W4M). This 41,589 ha environmentally significant area contains large natural areas and habitat for species such as the ferruginous hawk (ATPR 2009, Fiera 2009). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route traverses the Beaver Hills Initiative area for approximately 25.0 km from KPE 10.7 (NE 33-51-23 W4M) to KP 32.5 (NE 2-50-22 W4M) in Strathcona County and Leduc County (Beaver Hills Initiative 2012). The Beaver Hills Initiative area (also known as the Cooking Lake Moraine) is an extensively treed, upland area consisting of rolling to hummocky terrain rich in native wetlands and aspen dominated boreal mixedwood forest habitat. This ecosystem supports a high diversity of vegetation and wildlife (Beaver Hills Initiative 2012). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route encounters one PNT (Alberta Energy 2012). PNT 030043, located at NW 11-50-22 W4M (approximately KPHD 0.0), is administered by the AESRD Red Deer Fish and Wildlife Office and is noted as being an Ungulate Habitat Protection Area. Referral to AESRD is required prior to issuing any dispositions in the treed areas. No additional clearing within this PNT is permitted without AESRD consent (Alberta Energy 2012). In addition, there is a January 1 to March 31 timing restriction for this PNT, which may be relaxed during mild winters (Moore pers. comm.). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is not located within or adjacent to any provincial Parks (ATPR 2011). The closest is Strathcona Science Provincial Park, which is located approximately 1.8 km northwest of KP 0 (NE 32-52-23 W4M). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not cross any Important Bird Areas (IBAs) (BirdLife International et al. 2012, IBA Canada 2012). At approximately KP 33.8 (SW 1-50- 2 W4M), the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is located directly adjacent to the Ministik, Joseph and Oliver Lakes IBA (IBA AB070) which is located within Environmentally Significant Area No. 717. The Ministik, Joseph and Oliver Lakes IBA, listed as Globally Significant, contains excellent habitat for dabbling ducks and has recorded globally significant numbers of waterfowl in late summer. Joseph Lake hosts a number of colonial nesting birds, such as American white pelicans, California gulls, double-crested cormorants, and the entire area is an important spring and fall staging site for waterfowl, including tundra swans (BirdLife International et al. 2012, IBA Canada 2012). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not cross any Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves, Ramsar wetlands or World Biosphere Reserves (Environment Canada 2012c, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 2012, Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands 2012, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2012). The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not traverse any DUC Conservation Priority Areas (DUC 2010).

Page 5-6

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Wildlife and Wildlife • A search of the AESRD FWMIS database (AESRD 2012c) reported observations of three species listed under Schedule 1 of the Species at Habitat (cont’d) Risk Act (SARA) and by COSEWIC within 2 km of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. These are peregrine falcon (listed as Threatened under SARA Schedule 1 and Special Concern by COSEWIC), chestnut-collared longspur (listed as Threatened by COSEWIC) and short-eared owl (listed as Special Concern by COSEWIC). Note that a record for chestnut-collared longspur in this area is located outside of the normal range for this species (COSEWIC 2009a, Federation of Alberta Naturalists 2007). Provincially-listed wildlife species identified by FWMIS that were recorded within 2 km of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route included the following Sensitive species: American kestrel; American wigeon; American white pelican; black-crowned night heron; black tern; broad-winged hawk; chestnut- collared longspur; common yellowthroat; great gray owl; green-winged teal; lesser scaup; northern hawk owl; northern goshawk; purple martin; Swainson’s hawk; and western grebe (also listed as Special Concern under the Alberta Wildlife Act). • Wildlife surveys were conducted on July 13, 25 and 26, 2012 along selected segments of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (see Appendix 7 of this ESA). Survey locations were based on the desktop/literature review that identified habitat types with potential to support species with special conservation status or important wildlife features and land access. Field work was conducted on foot and included breeding bird point count surveys, visual scans and ground inspections at all surveyed locations to observe wildlife and wildlife habitats along and immediately adjacent to the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. All wildlife observations, evidence of wildlife use and important wildlife habitat features were recorded. During the July 2012 wildlife surveys, a total of 5 mammal species, 58 bird species and 2 amphibian species were observed. No SARA or COSEWIC-listed wildlife species were observed. Species at Risk or Vegetation Species of Special • No plant species at risk listed by SARA or COSEWIC are identified as potentially occurring in the Central Parkland and the Dry Mixedwood Status Natural subregions. No previously recorded occurrences of rare plants with a SARA or COSEWIC designation are known to occur within 5 km of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route (ACIMS 2012a). No COSEWIC or SARA-listed species were found during the vegetation surveys in July and August 2012. Aquatics • One fish species, lake sturgeon, listed by COSEWIC, is known to occur in the North Saskatchewan River within the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route Aquatics RSA (COSEWIC 2012). Although lake sturgeon are known to occur within the mainstem of the North Saskatchewan River, they would not occur in its smaller tributaries near the proposed crossings within the Aquatics LSA. Wildlife • A list of wildlife species with special conservation status that have the potential to occur along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route was prepared. The list, provided in Appendix 7 of this ESA, is based on wildlife species identified as having the potential to occur in the Central Parkland Subregion of the Parkland Natural Region and Dry Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal Forest Natural Region (Natural Regions Committee 2006). The list was further refined based on species range, species habitat requirements and professional knowledge. Based on the desktop/literature review, COSEWIC and SARA-listed Schedule 1 wildlife species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route include the following: - little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus [Endangered by COSEWIC]); - Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii [Special Concern by COSEWIC]); - barn swallow (Hirundo rustica [Threatened by COSEWIC]); - bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus [Threatened by COSEWIC]); - common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor [Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC]); - ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis [Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC]); - horned grebe (Podiceps auritus [Special Concern by COSEWIC]); - loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus [Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC]); - short-eared owl (Asio flammeus [Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC]); - Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii [Threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC]); and - yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis [Special Concern on Schedule 1 of SARA and by COSEWIC] (COSEWIC 2012, Government of Canada 2011). Details and habitat suitability for these species is provided in Section 6.0 of this ESA. • A review of historical documents for projects built in the area parallel to the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route produced no occurrences of COSEWIC and SARA-listed Schedule 1 wildlife species (TERA 1996, 2004a, 2007b). • The potential habitat and the presence of wildlife species at risk were assessed during wildlife surveys conducted in July 2012 (Appendix 7 of this ESA). No SARA or COSEWIC-listed wildlife species were observed during July 2012 field surveys.

Page 5-7

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Occupancy and • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is located on both privately-owned lands and Crown lands in the White Area of Alberta. Resource Use The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route traverses the Transportation / Utilities Corridor (TUC) for approximately 10 km (26%), provincial Crown land for 0.8 km (2%) and the remaining 27.4 km (72%) of its length is privately-owned land, • Land use along the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route consists of: cultivated land (28.6%); treed-pasture (27.2%); tame pasture (21.2%); hay (14.1%); treed areas (6.3%); open water (1%); tree nursery (0.8%) and disturbed land (0.8%). • In Strathcona County, from KP 0.0 to KPHC 0.3 (SE 5-53-23 W4M to NE 32-50-22 W4M), the Project is located in areas zoned as Agricultural General (20.3 km), Agricultural Future Development (2.4 km), Rural Residential and Agriculture (1.5 km), Medium Industrial (1.3 km), Country Residential (0.4 km), Golf Course (0.1 km) and Heavy Industrial (0.05 km) (Strathcona County 2012a). In Leduc County, from KPHC 0.3 to KP 33.8 (NE 32-50-22 W4M to SW 1-50-22 W4M). the Project is located in areas zoned as Agricultural and Crown Land Transitional (11 km), Lake Watershed (0.2 km) and Agricultural (0.05 km) (Leduc County 2012a). • The nearest communities to the Project are the City of Edmonton (approximately 200 m west of KPE 4.0 [SW 21-52-23 W4M], Sherwood Park (crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route from KP 0.0 [SE 5-53-23 W4M] to KPHA 0.4 [SW 28-52-23 W4M], the City of Leduc (approximately 19.8 km southwest of KPE 10 [NW 33-51-23 W4M], the City of Camrose (approximately 31.2 km southeast of KP 33.8 [SW 1-50-22 W4M] and the Town of Tofield (approximately 26.9 km east of KP 33.8 [SW 1-50-22 W4M]. • Stony Plain Indian Reserve No. 135, the nearest reserve to the Project, is located approximately 25 km west of the KP 0.0 at SE 5-53-23 W4M . • Residences within Edmonton and Sherwood Park are in close proximity to the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. There are many residences within the Socio-economic LSA. • A registered Farm Development Lease is encountered by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at NE 11-50-22 W4M (approximately KP 30.5) (Alberta Energy 2012). • The Project is not located within a Forestry Management Area. • Given the scale and location of the Project, minor interaction of the Project with local and regional human occupancy and resource development activities is expected. • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not encounter any parks, protected areas or recreational uses. The nearest park is Strathcona Science Provincial Park, located outside the Socio-economic LSA, approximately 1.8 km northwest of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 0.0 (SE 5-53-23 W4M). There are also a number of other parks and protected areas in the Socio- economic RSA including: Riverlot 56 Natural Area (19.2 km northwest of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 0.0 [SE 5-53-23 W4M]); Sherwood Park Natural Area (2.6 km northeast of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KPE 14.0 [SE 35- 51-23 W4M]); Antler Lake Island Natural Area (18 km northeast of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 18.0 [NW 17-51- 22 W4M]); Cooking Lake-Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area (20 km northwest of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 19.0 [SE 17-51-22 W4M]); North Cooking Lake Natural Area (16 km northeast of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 19.0 [SE 17-51-22 W4M]); Hastings Lake Islands Natural Area (15 km northeast of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 27.0 [NW 22-50-22 W4M]); and Edgar T. Jones Natural Area (18.8 km northeast of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route at KP 28.0 [SE 22-50-22 W4M]) (ATPR 2011). • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses one environmentally significant area (No. 717) of international importance in two locations from KPHD 0.4 to KPHD 0.5 (in NW 11-50-22 W4M) and KP 33.5 to KP 33.8 (in SW 1-50-22 W4M). The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is in close proximity to two other environmentally significant areas of national importance (No. 724b and No. 320) (ATPR 2009). • Bretona Pond, located approximately 600 m southwest of KP 11 (NW 34-51-23 W4M), is an area of interest for birders but is not federally or provincially protected. Also within Strathcona County there are two conservation easements crossed by the proposed pipeline route. The first area is located in SE 35-51-23 W4M at the Mill Creek crossing and the second is located in SE 36-51-23 W4M. The conservation easements are an agreement between the landowner and Strathcona County regarding management of the land, and conditions vary depending on the terms of the agreement (Strathcona County 2012b). The purpose of these conservation easement areas is to conserve and enhance the environment of the area, without limiting the protection, conservation and enhancement of its biological diversity. • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses lands located in Wildlife Management Units (WMU) 248 and 242 that include hunting seasons for white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, cougar, black bear and moose. The game birds hunted in these WMUs include snow geese, Canada geese, ducks, coots, snipe, male pheasant, ruffled grouse, spruce grouse, sharp-tailed grouse and gray partridge (Government of Alberta 2012b). • In WMU 248, the general hunting season for white-tailed deer, mule-deer, elk and moose is September 1 to November 30 (archery only) and for moose October 25 to December 7. Hunting season for snow geese, Canada geese, ducks, coots and snipe is from September 1 to December 16. For male pheasant, ruffled grouse, spruce grouse and gray partridge, the hunting season extends from September 1 to November 30; and sharp-tailed grouse season is from October 1 to October 30 (Government of Alberta 2012b). • Following the archery season (September 1 to October 31), the general hunting season for white-tailed deer, mule-deer and moose is from September 1 to November 30 (archery only September 1 to October 31) in WMU 242. Cougar season is from November 1 to November 30; and the fall black bear season is from September 1 to November 30 and the spring season is from April 1 to May 31. The hunting season for male pheasant, ruffled grouse, spruce grouse and gray partridge is from September 1 to November 30; the sharp-tailed grouse season is from October 1 to October 30 (Government of Alberta 2012b). • The Project is located in the Prairie Parkland (Zone 2) Fish Management Zone within the North Saskatchewan sub-basin (Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration 2008). The watercourses crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route are Goldbar, Mill and Irvine creeks. Locations in the Socio-economic LSA were identified for rainbow trout fishing activity, including Back 40 and Hermitage Park Ponds in Sherwood Park. The Socio-economic RSA also includes locations for fishing activity, including Beaumont Pond in Beaumont as well as the Leduc Reservoir and Telegraph Park Pond in Hay Lakes (Government of Alberta 2012c). None of the watercourses crossed by the pipeline route were identified as being important for fishing (Alberta Fishing Guide 2012).

Page 5-8

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Human Occupancy and • Recreational use of the lands in the Socio-economic RSA includes parks, camping, cycling, cross country skiing, snowshoeing and Resource Use (cont’d) snowmobiling (Mussio Ventures Ltd. 2010). The Belvedere Golf and Country Club in Sherwood Park is in the Socio-economic LSA and crossed at approximately KP 14.0 (NE 25-51-23 W4M). • There are 615 wells within a 1 km radius of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. Most of the groundwater wells within this area are used for domestic purposes. Other well uses include stock, domestic and stock, investigation, industrial, municipal, observation and others (AESRD 2012a). Heritage Resources • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route parallels an existing pipeline corridor that has been previously investigated. Most of the lands crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route have no Historical Resource Value (HRV); however, several quarter- sections have HRVs of 4a and 5a (Alberta Culture 2012). • Abundant historic structures (n=110) have been recorded in legal locations crossed by the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route. A total of 25 archaeological sites have been previously recorded within 100 m of the Project Footprint. • An HRIA was conducted by TERA from October 2 to 19, 2012 which incorporates the results of a site file search and a field reconnaissance. The full extent of the proposed right-of-way was not investigated during the field assessment, since target areas were selected for assessment based on the results of the desktop study which identified areas of higher historical resources potential. These target areas were included in the Permit Application submitted to Alberta Culture, and were accepted by Alberta Culture in the issuance of Archaeological Research Permit 12-217. • To date, a total of 55 shovel tests have been excavated within 14 test locations under Archaeological Research Permit 12-217. During this assessment, the following were identified within the Project Footprint: three previously unknown archaeological sites (Precontact artifact scatters FhPg-12 and FhPg-13, and historic artifact scatter FiPh-15); and two historic sites with standing structures. Each of these sites has been mitigated by the recording, mapping and subsurface testing conducted to date. No additional mitigative measures are recommended for sites FhPg-12, FhPg-13 or FiPh-15, or for the standing structures in the two historic sites to be impacted by the Project. • The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route does not traverse any previously designated palaeontological sites or palaeontologically sensitive areas. The Project is located on lands listed as having no HRV for palaeontological resources in the current Listing of Historical Resources (Alberta Culture 2012). However, Alberta Culture requested a palaeontological assessment be conducted for Quaternary palaeontology, focusing on those watercourse crossings where the pipeline is anticipated to encounter fluvial or lacustrine deposits. A palaeontological assessment was conducted on October 7 and 8, 2012 under Permit 12-041. No concerns were identified and no further action is recommended. • Further details on the methodology and results of the HRIA, including paleaontological assessment, will be provided in the final report submitted to Alberta Culture for review and approval. Construction will not commence until Project clearance under the Historical Resources Act is received from Alberta Culture. Traditional Land and • Stony Plain Indian Reserve No. 135, the nearest reserve to the Project, is located approximately 25 km west of the KP 0 (SE 5-53-23 W4M). Resource Use • Enbridge has consulted with the following Aboriginal communities: Alexander First Nation; Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation; Paul First Nation; Enoch Cree Nation; Ermineskin Tribe; Louis Bull Tribe; Montana First Nation; Samson Cree Nation; Métis Nation of Alberta – Zone II Regional Council; and Métis Nation of Alberta – Zone IV Regional Council. • Crown land at NW 11-50-22 W4M is accessible by road, however, to date, Enbridge has not been made aware of any use of this land for traditional activities. Nevertheless, Enbridge assumes that TLRU activities including hunting and plant gathering are potentially practiced at these locations. • Enbridge does not believe that formal TLRU studies are necessary for the Project since the current land tenure and land use precludes, to a large extent, the practice of traditional activities on the lands in question. Enbridge will review and consider specific community proposals to review areas of Crown land crossed by the proposed pipeline route where proposals are reasonable and appropriate. Information collected will be considered and incorporated into Project planning and mitigation.

Page 5-9

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Social and Cultural • In 2011, Edmonton’s population was 812,201. Approximately 68% of the population was between the ages of 15 and 59 years old. The Well-Being median age is 36 years (Statistics Canada 2012a). In 2006, the city had a labour force of 598,905 individuals with 294,290 males and 304,610 females. The community had an identified Aboriginal population of 38,170 individuals. Top occupations include: sales and service occupations; business, finance and administration occupations; and trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (Statistics Canada 2007a). • In 2011, Strathcona County’s population was 92,490, including the hamlet of Sherwood Park. Approximately 63% of the population was between the ages of 15 and 59 years old. The median age was 39.1 years (Statistics Canada 2012b). In 2006, the county had a labour force of 64,670 individuals with 31,945 males and 32,725 females. It had an identified Aboriginal population of 2,270 individuals. Top occupations include: sales and service; business, finance and administration occupations; and trades, transport and equipment operators (Statistics Canada 2007b). • In 2011, Leduc County's population was 13,541. Approximately 63% of the population was between the ages of 15 and 59 years old. The median age was 41.9 years (Statistics Canada 2012c). In 2006, the county had a labour force of 10,275 individuals with 5,330 males and 4,940 females. It had an identified Aboriginal population of 390 individuals. Top occupations include: trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations; occupations unique to a primary industry; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2007c). • In 2011, the population of the City of Leduc was 24,279. Approximately 64% of the population was between the ages of 15 and 59 years old. The median age is 34 years (Statistics Canada 2012d). In 2006, the city had a labour force of 13,590 individuals with 6,695 males and 6,895 females. It had an identified Aboriginal population of 500 individuals. Top occupations include: sales and service occupations; trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2007d). • In 2011, the population of the City of Camrose was 17,286. Approximately 59% of the population was between the ages of 15 and 59 years old. The median age is 41.2 years (Statistics Canada 2012e). In 2006, the city had a labour force of 12,660 individuals with 5,930 males and 6,725 females. It had an identified Aboriginal population of 530 individuals. Top occupations include: sales and service occupations; trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2007e). • In 2011, Tofield’s population was 2,182. Approximately 56% of the population was between the ages of 15 and 59 years old. The median age is 42.3 years (Statistics Canada 2012f). In 2006, the town had a labour force of 1,355 individuals with 645 males and 710 females. It had an identified Aboriginal population of 75 individuals. Top occupations include: trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations; sales and service occupations; and business, finance and administration occupations (Statistics Canada 2007f). Human Health • The environmental elements associated with the proposed pipeline that may be related to human health include physical and meteorological environment, soil and soil productivity, water quality, air emissions, acoustic environment, fish and fish habitat, and wildlife and wildlife habitat. Socio-economic elements that may be related to human health include human occupancy and resource use, traditional land and resource use, social and cultural well-being, and infrastructure and services. Information pertaining to these elements is presented in this table; information related to health services is presented under Infrastructure and Services in this table. The Project-related activities, nuisance emissions and environmental changes that could potentially be sources of adverse human health effects, potential human receptors of these effects and mitigation pertaining to human health are discussed in Section 6.2.16 of this ESA. Infrastructure and • Project-related goods will be transported by rail or by truck using primary and secondary highways as well as various existing municipal Services roads. The proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route crosses two primary highways, three secondary highways and various county roads. • There is one Automated Traffic Recorder (ATR) north of Highway 216. Highways are labeled on Figure 1.1 of this ESA. The ATR is located 1.4 km north of the junction of Highway 216 and Baseline Road. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volume at this ATR has been increasing for the past 10 years. In 2002, the AADT volume was 30,050 vehicles and in 2011, the AADT volume was 49,710 vehicles (Alberta Transportation 2012). There is also an ATR located 1.6 km south of the junction of Highway 216 and Baseline Road. The AADT volume at this ATR has also been increasing for the past 10 years. In 2002, the AADT volume was 29,200 vehicles and in 2011, the AADT volume was 57,180 vehicles (Alberta Transportation 2012). • There are two ATRs along Highway 21 near Sherwood Park. One ATR is located 2.2 km south of the junction of Highway 16 and Highway 21. The AADT volume at this ATR has increased over the past 10 years. In 2002, the AADT volume was 9,930 vehicles and in 2011, the AADT volume was 10,870 vehicles (Alberta Transportation 2012). The other ATR is located 4 km south of the junction of Highway 14 and Highway 21. The AADT volume at this ATR has slightly decreased over the past 10 years. In 2002, the AADT was 8,520 vehicles and in 2011, the AADT volume was 7,970 vehicles (Alberta Transportation 2012). • There is an ATR at the junction of Highway 14 and Highway 834 near Tofield. The AADT volume at this ATR has been consistent for the past 10 years. In 2002, the AADT volume was 4,210 vehicles and in 2011, the AADT volume was 4,810 vehicles (Alberta Transportation 2012). • There are two ATRs along Highway 21 near Camrose. One ATR is located approximately 6 km north of the junction of Highway 13 and Highway 21. The AADT volume at this ATR has slightly increased over the past 10 years. In 2002, the AADT volume was 4,270 vehicles and in 2011, the AADT volume was 5,080 vehicles (Alberta Transportation 2012). The other ATR is located approximately 0.8 km south of the junction of Highway 13 and Highway 21. The AADT volume at this ATR has slightly increased over the past 10 years. In 2002, the AADT volume was 2,400 vehicles and in 2011, the AADT volume was 2,730 vehicles. • There are two major airports near the largest service centre of Edmonton: the Edmonton International Airport; and the Edmonton City Centre Airport (Edmonton Airports 2010a,b). • Edmonton is a hub for various rail transportation networks. Canadian National’s (CN’s) rail systems include mainlines, with a VIA Rail Canada passenger route, and collector and primary feeder routes. The Canadian Pacific Railway’s (CPR’s) rail systems also include mainlines, collector and primary feeder routes, but no passenger routes (NRCan 2008b). The CN Intermodal Terminal is approximately 15 km northwest of Edmonton on Highway 16 (CN 2012). The closest rail stations to the route are in Edmonton near the Edmonton City Centre Airport and approximately 29 km from Camrose (VIA Rail Canada Inc. 2012). • The largest major centre near the Project is Edmonton, which provides all major services (City of Edmonton 2012b). Other nearby centres include Sherwood Park, City of Leduc, Town of Tofield and City of Camrose. These communities provide accommodation, restaurants, groceries, churches, banks, post office, gas and diesel (Strathcona County 2012c, City of Leduc 2012a, Town of Tofield 2012a, City of Camrose 2009a).

Page 5-10

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Infrastructure and • Direct Energy Regulated Services, AltaGas Utilities and Sedgewick Killam Natural Gas System supply natural gas to communities in the Services (cont’d) Project area and electricity is provided by EPCOR Energy Inc. (Government of Alberta 2012d). • The City of Edmonton draws its domestic water supply from the North Saskatchewan River, which is then treated at the EPCOR water treatment plant (City of Edmonton 2012c). Strathcona County and Sherwood Park’s domestic water is supplied by the Strathcona County Utilities, which draws water from the North Saskatchewan River (Strathcona County 2012d).The City of Leduc and the Town of Tofield’s domestic water is piped from Edmonton’s treated water supply (Capital Region Southwest Water Services Commission 2012, Town of Tofield 2012b). The City of Camrose’s domestic water supply is drawn from Dried Meat Lake, which is then treated in facilities in the city (City of Camrose 2009b). • The nearest solid waste facility in the vicinity of the proposed Line 2 Replacement pipeline route is the Waste Management Centre in the City of Edmonton, which accepts solid non-hazardous waste for direct landfill disposal as well as material suitable for recycling and composting (City of Edmonton 2012d). There are three drop-off facilities for hazardous and general domestic waste in Edmonton, which also accept solid non-hazardous commercial waste (City of Edmonton 2012d). Sherwood Park is serviced by Strathcona County and the Waste Management Centre in the City of Edmonton (Strathcona County 2012e,f). The Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Facility accepts commercial for direct landfill disposal as well as material suitable for recycling and composting in Leduc City (Leduc and District Regional Waste Management Facility 2012). The Town of Tofield has a landfill that accepts solid non-hazardous waste for direct disposal as well as recycling and composting, and also has two transfer stations for hazardous waste (Town of Tofield 2012c). The City of Camrose is serviced by the Camrose Regional Sanitary Landfill, which accepts commercial and non-commercial non-hazardous and special wastes (City of Camrose 2009c). • Accommodations in Edmonton include 96 hotels and motels, 12 bed and breakfasts, 1 resort, 6 vacation rental properties, 10 extended stay hotels and 5 hostels (World Web Technologies Inc. 2012a). Sherwood Park has nine hotels and motels and one RV park/campground (World Web Technologies Inc. 2012b,c). The City of Leduc has 19 hotels and motels and 1 vacation rental property (World Web Technologies Inc. 2012d). The Town of Tofield has a hotel, motel and inn (Town of Tofield 2012d). The City of Camrose offers 12 hotels and motels, and 1 bed and breakfast (City of Camrose 2009d). • In Edmonton, there are at least 6 campgrounds/RV parks with more than 300 hook-up and non-hook-up sites (World Web Technologies Inc. 2012e). There is an RV park/campground near Sherwood Park with approximately 58 outdoor camping spots with full hook-up sites (World Web Technologies Inc. 2012c, Kawtikh RV Retreat 2012). The City of Leduc has 2 campgrounds with 40 sites and at least 20 hook-up sites (World Web Technologies Inc. 2012f). Tofield has 4 campgrounds with approximately 100 sites and 40 hook-up sites (Town of Tofield 2012d). Camrose has 2 RV parks with over 150 hook-up sites (City of Camrose 2009e). • Hospitals in the Socio-economic RSA in Edmonton include the Grey Nuns Hospital, the Misericordia Community Hospital, the Northeast Community Health Centre, the Royal Alexandra Hospital and the University of Alberta Hospital (Alberta Health Services 2012a). Sherwood Park is in the process of constructing a new hospital, with an expected completion date of 2013 (Alberta Health Services 2012b). Leduc, Tofield and Camrose each have one hospital: the Leduc Community Hospital; the Tofield Health Centre; and Saint Mary’s Hospital, respectively (Capital Health 2012, Town of Tofield 2012e, Saint Mary's Hospital 2012). • Fire and emergency services are available through the City of Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Tofield and Camrose (City of Edmonton 2012e, Strathcona County 2012g,h, City of Leduc 2012b, Tofield Fire Department 2012, Alberta Health 2012). Ambulance services in Edmonton, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Camrose and Tofield are provided by Alberta Health Services (Strathcona County 2012g, Alberta Health 2012). Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachments are located in Edmonton,Sherwood Park, Leduc, Tofield and Camrose (RCMP 2012). • Edmonton Fire Rescue Services includes 27 fire stations with 46 trucks servicing the Edmonton Area (City of Edmonton 2012f). Sherwood Park has a volunteer fire department (Strathcona County 2012h). Leduc has one fire station servicing the city and surrounding communities (City of Leduc 2012b). Tofield has a volunteer fire department (Tofield Fire Department 2012). The Camrose Fire Rescue Service is a combination of 47 professional and volunteer fire-fighters with one station and three pump trucks servicing Camrose and parts of the county around the city (City of Camrose 2009f). • Policing services in Edmonton are provided by the Edmonton Police Commission, which employs more than 1,500 sworn officers (Edmonton Police Service 2011). Policing in the City of Leduc is provided by the City of Leduc Enforcement Services (City of Leduc 2012d) and in Camrose by the Camrose Police Service (Camrose Police Service 2012). All service centres in the vicinity of the proposed route have 911 access (Alberta Health 2012). • Given the scope of the Project, the associated incremental change to the local population is unlikely to place any undue pressures on local roadways, municipal services, emergency services or local accommodations during the construction period.

Page 5-11

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

TABLE 5.1 Cont'd

Environmental and Socio-Economic Elements Summary of Considerations Employment and • Edmonton’s economic base is diverse and includes the provision of supplies and services for the oil and gas industry, communication Economy technology and health industries (City of Edmonton 2010). • The economic base of Strathcona County, which includes Sherwood Park, is oil and gas, manufacturing, agriculture and service and tourism (Strathcona County 2007). • Leduc County’s economy is primarily based on agriculture and oil and gas (Leduc County 2012b). The City of Leduc’s economy is based on oil and gas, advanced technologies, training facilities, construction and agriculture (City of Leduc 2012c). • Tofield’s economic base is agriculture, oil and gas, commercial services and tourism (Town of Tofield 2012f). • Camrose’s economic base is oil and gas, health care, agriculture and education (City of Camrose 2011, 2009g). • In 2006, participation, unemployment and employment rates in Edmonton were 72%, 4.9% and 68.4%, respectively. Education for individuals ages 15 and over in Edmonton includes: 10.2% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 17.7% for college or non-university certificate or diploma; and 20.1% for university degree, certificate or diploma. The most common occupations in Edmonton are: sales and services (24.2%); business, finance, and administration (18.8%); and trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (17.7%) (Statistics Canada 2007a). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in Strathcona County, which includes Sherwood Park, were 76.1%, 3.5% and 73.5%, respectively, in 2006. Education for individuals ages 15 and over in Strathcona County, which includes Sherwood Park, includes: 12.2% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 21.2% for college or non-university certificate or diploma; and 17.8% for university degree, certificate or diploma. The most common occupations in Strathcona County, which includes Sherwood Park, are: sales and service occupations (20.4%); business finance and administration occupations (19.9%); and trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (17.3%) (Statistics Canada 2007b). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in Leduc County were 77.1%, 2.3% and 75.4%, respectively, in 2006. Education for individuals ages 15 and over in Leduc County includes: 14.9% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 16.4% for college or non-university certificate or diploma; and 8.9% for university degree, certificate or diploma. The most common occupations in the County of Leduc are: trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (23.6%); occupations unique to a primary industry (19.6%); and business, finance and administration occupations (17%) (Statistics Canada 2007c). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in the City of Leduc were 74.7%, 4.7% and 71.1%, respectively, in 2006. Education for individuals ages 15 and over in the City of Leduc includes: 14.9% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 19.2% for college or non- university certificate or diploma; and 8.2% for university degree, certificate or diploma. The most common occupations in the City of Leduc are: sales and services (24%); trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (23.3%); and business, finance, and administration (20.3%) (Statistics Canada 2007d). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in the City of Camrose were 66.4%, 4.8% and 63.2%, respectively, in 2006. Education for individuals ages 15 and over in the City of Camrose includes: 12.3% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 16.1% for college or non- university certificate or diploma; and 13.1% for university degree, certificate or diploma. The most common occupations in the City of Camrose are: sales and services (29.3%); trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (17.3%); and business, finance, and administration (14.1%) (Statistics Canada 2007e). • Participation, unemployment and employment rates in the Town of Tofield were 56.5%, 4.6% and 53.9%, respectively, in 2006. Education for individuals ages 15 and over in the Town of Tofield includes: 14.7% for apprentice trade certificate or diploma; 15.4% for college or non- university certificate or diploma; and 7% for university degree, certificate or diploma. The most common occupations in the Town of Tofield are: trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (32%); sales and services (23.5%); and business, finance, and administration (14.4%) (Statistics Canada 2007f).

Page 5-12

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

PHOTOPLATES

Plate 1 View southeast across the proposed right-of-way within the TUC in NW 28-52-23 W4M at approximately KPE 1 (September 2012).

Plate 2 View south along a portion of the right-of-way within the TUC in NW 16-52-23 W4M at approximately KPE 4.3 (September 2012).

Page 5-13

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Line 2 Replacement Project December 2012 / 8207

Plate 3 View northwest along a portion of the right-of-way in the vicinity of Looking Back Lake in NE 15-50-22 W4M at approximately KP 29.5 (September 2012).

Plate 4 View south along the right-of-way along the Crown land in NW 11-50-22 W4M at approximately KP 30.5 (September 2012).

Page 5-14